28J. Gait of the American Trotter and Pacer 



2. Again considering the hind feet, we have U and U' of 2 in a far 

 better condition for the necessary backward extension downhill than 

 they would appear to be as D and D' of i ; but in going uphill the 

 hind feet D and D' of 2 would not be benefited as much by a low angle 

 as they would be in U and U' of 2 because of the lack of heel support 

 and of the difficult leverage at toe. To avoid, however, too great a 

 backward extension of such hind feet, as in U and U' of i, the angle 

 necessary for an effective leverage at toe, and the latters hold on the 

 ground, would probably be midway between the two angles here shown. 

 The purpose of pointing out these conditions on the incline is merely 

 to find a remedy for excessive variations in the strides when they 

 do occur in either direction. To insure a regular gait such variations 

 should be but small, and while they exist at all times to some extent, 

 they are attributable more to the condition of the ground and the am- 

 bition of the animal rather than to the faulty leverage at the toes. 



A few cases as illustration may perhaps serve to bring these 

 points more vividly before the mind of the reader. Let me take the 

 most palpable cases where some pacing inclination existed. These were, 

 one a filly discussed under Fig. 190, and the other one an unsatis- 

 factory little trotter that would pace now and then, but was possessed 

 of no speed. The latter puzzled me a good deal on account of her lack 

 of extension of either fore or hind. There was no action either by 

 which to influence the gait through weight of shoe or angles of feet. 

 She generally showed an excess of extension on one side only, in- 

 stead of having it appear diagonally across. Heavy front shoes with 

 toe-weights would steady her and give her a longer stride, but at all 

 times she would trot better uphill than downhill. It was always evi- 

 dent that the action was better going uphill, that is, it was equalized 

 more between fore and hind legs. Due to some weakness in hind an- 

 kles the near hind would generally extend ahead of the off hind quite 

 a little bit. This filly was by Welcome 2 : 10^/2, a son of Arthur Wilkes. 



A trial with the shoeing of Fig. 205 resulted in the extensions as 

 given for uphill and downhill. Here again we see the sidelong extensions 

 in the downhill drive. Of course, there was always the disadvantage in 

 her shoeing of having to provide for a smooth hind shoe with a little 



