Downhill and Uphill Trials Compared 291 



the extremities, as seen in the upgrade movement, is due to an in- 

 creased action of the hind and somewhat decreased action of the front 

 legs. Downhill, therefore, we are apt to have a greater knee action 

 and a lower hock action, while uphill the reverse is generally the case. 

 The increased extension of the off hind in Fig. 208 is no doubt due 

 to the difference in length of heels, as well as to the presumably greater 

 elevation and lesser extension of the near hind. The absolute equality 

 of the distance between fore and hind feet is noteworthy and shows 



FIG. 2O 6 



see f if. 107. 



Downhill uphill 



2../G in 48 m. 



FIG. 2OG 

 see 'ft$. 13 



Downhill *\ Up hi (I 



.36 in. .72 in. 



Stride 

 16.12ft /4.61ft 



D/st corrcUset. 



3.66ft. 366ft. 



Overstep 

 j.Zffr. 3S5ft. 



Stride 

 1 5 59 ft 1 5.60 ft, 



Distcorrel. feet 

 3.90ft 3.9eft 



Overstep 

 3.90ft. 3oft 



how this separation increases going uphill, for the greater stride of 

 16.12 ft. should have, as a rule, the greater separation as well as the 

 greater overstep. The variations of the strides were much greater 

 going uphill than downhill, in fact, so great that their comparison with 

 those of the downhill movement proved that the shoeing was not quite 

 satisfactory. 



In'Fig. 209 we have the extensions of the shoeing of Figs. 113 and 

 1 14. The difference in toe-lengths besides in weights is here to be con- 

 sidered. The shorter toe of off fore (3% in.) and its lower angle 



