INTRODUCTION. 15 



THE FORM OF STATING A PEDIGREE. 



Being fully aware that at this point I am met with the 

 prejudices of very many of our most intelligent breeders, 

 especially those who have been in the habit of referring to 

 the British Stud-Book, it is but justice to me that you 

 examine carefully the reasons for this apparent innovation. 

 My preference has been and still is for the English method 

 of giving the mares and their produce under them. But, 

 after laboring some months to carry out that system, I found 

 it extremely unsatisfactory, if not impracticable. 



You must remember that in this volume, good and bad, 

 there are twenty Diomeds, ten Fearnoughts, sixteen Flori- 

 zels, thirteen Januses, nineteen Eclipses, and Sir Archys, 

 Sir Charleses, Rattlers, Nonpareils, Othellos, Selims, &c., in 

 great numbers. And it so happens that in most of these 

 cases the animals bearing the duplicate names are the sons 

 of some famous horse, and are consequently contempo- 

 raneous. These are facts in horse nomenclature that the 

 Englishman never dreamed of ; and, abominable and per- 

 plexing as they are, they have to be met. Suppose, in the 

 case of a Medley mare, you find one of her foals got by 

 Diomed, you find it is not imported Diomed, but a son of 

 his; hence you say, "by Diomed, son of imp. Diomed." 

 But there are a dozen others that this description will apply 

 to, hence you add "Smith's;" but the horse has been 

 owned by Jones, and is sometimes called "Jones's Dio- 

 med" or " Moore's Diomed." Here you have taken up two 

 or three lines across the page in identifying the horse, and 

 broken up and confused your list of produce. Now, 

 apply this difficulty of identification and description to the 

 system of numbers as used in this volume, and you will say 

 "by Diomed, 711," which definitely fixes the horse without 



