Experiments and their Verification 237 



sequent shoeing Fig. I79-A to which reference was made, and 

 which again shows squared toes on near fore and off hind, this limp 

 between the two pairs of feet became still more evident to the ear. 



At the next and last trial of the season my notes tell me that the 

 gelding was going well (Fig. 180), but that he was liable to interfere 

 on off side and would break in consequence. The distances of corre- 

 lated feet were practically the same (3.36 3.39), and the regularity 

 of the trotting rhythm left nothing to be desired while the good 

 action lasted and until interference took place. 



Mention has already been made of the danger of excessive ex- 

 tension by one pair of diagonally opposite or correlated feet. Here 

 is an instance where equality of distance between these fore and hind 

 feet had been achieved, but with too great an extension of one pair, 

 viz., the near fore and off hind. Now let us look at the shoeing. 



In Fig. I79-A the near fore is checked in forward extension by 

 the roll and squared toe of the shoe, but again it is inclined toward 

 extension by its foot being shorter (3^ in.) than that of off fore 

 (3^ in.). For the latter acts as a stilt for the greater extension 

 of its opposite mate. Again, the higher angle (52) was to correct 

 the dished toe of the near fore as compared with the straight toe 

 and lower angle of off fore; but in conjunction with the squared toe 

 this greater angle seems to facilitate the break-over at toe. All in 

 all, therefore, the greater forward extension of the near fore is 

 almost a foregone conclusion, especially if we take into consideration 

 the hind adjustment. Here we have, to begin with, the same weight 

 in both' shoes, but the longer toe on the near hind. Again, the higher 

 angle and greater swell in heels of the off hind, together with the 

 squared toe seems to entirely counteract the longer toe of near hind. 

 The absence of greater weight in the near hind shoe does also not 

 favor extension. We have, therefore, again everything in favor of a 

 greater extension with the off hind, especially if we remember the 

 habitual forward reach of that leg. There being such a habit, we need 

 only recall the intimate relation existing between the feet that move 

 together in order to understand the mutual influence of the near fore 

 by the off hind. 



