16 INTRODUCTION. 



the possibility of mistake. This, then, is the first argument 

 in favor of my system the brevity and certainty of identi- 

 fication. 



The second argument is, that while it is definite and cer- 

 tain so far as the animal in question is concerned, it does 

 not close the door against others from the same dam that 

 may not have been found. All familiar with the English 

 system, and with the importations made from that country, 

 know that if an animal in question is not found in the list 

 of produce of a given mare, it is prima facie evidence of an 

 attempt at fraud ; and no difference how clearly it may be 

 demonstrated that the book was wrong, a doubt at least will 

 attach to the animal and offspring in the minds of many for- 

 ever. In such a country as England, not embracing a 

 continent, where breeding studs are carried on by the 

 intelligent and wealthy, and transmitted from father to 

 son, and where the compilation and correction of pedigrees 

 have been in competent hands for nearly eighty, years, we 

 would expect fullness and accuracy. But in this country, 

 after a lapse of a hundred years of breeding and racing, 

 without any successful attempt at even a partial compila- 

 tion, entire fullness and accuracy cannot be reasonably 

 expected. Hence the objection to any system that by its 

 nature assumes the impossibility of fullness and accuracy. 



To illustrate this point, take for example the famous 

 old brood mare Bet Bounce. John S. Skinner, Esq., the 

 founder and very successful editor of the American Turf 

 Register, proposed at one time to compile an American 

 stud-book, and published in 1835 the pedigree and produce 

 of Bet Bounce, as follows, viz. : 



Bet Bounce. Foaled ; bred by ; was got by imported 



