THE FORE-FEET. 63 



It appears to me that wi-iters are not sufficiently 

 precise in the use of the tenn, contraction. They ap- 

 pear to apply it indiscriminately to a natm-al develop- 

 ment and a diseased condition of the heel. This I 

 think is not right. The one might be called a narrow, 

 and the other a contracted, heel. At all events, the 

 same tenn should not be used in both cases — more 

 especially as there is seldom any difficulty in distin- 

 guishing between a foot which is nan*ow by nature, and 

 one which is contracted by disease. 



" I have yet," says Nimrod, " to see an instance of 

 contraction alone producing lameness in the foot of a 

 horse. On the contrary, my experience has justified 

 the conclusion, that the nan'ow, mule-like foot is the 

 foot most likely to stand, uninjm-ed, very severe work 

 on the road. Asses, mules, and ponies bear me out 

 here ; for they are never lame in their feet, though they 

 are contraction exemplified. I am convinced that con- 

 traction of the hoof, when not natmal, is the effect of 

 internal inflammation of it ; but I have never seen a 

 solitary instance of its being the cause of lameness." 

 Now, with all due deference to this celebrated writer, 

 I must take exception to this statement. The foot he 

 refers to must be a natural, sound, and healthy one, 

 which consequently has no right to be lame, and al- 

 though narrow, it shoidd never be called contracted ; 

 or else we are driven to the ridiculous necessity of 

 believing that a diseased foot is more " likely to stand, 



