156 COMPARATIVE SHAPE OF HORSES. 



in the case of the galloper. To this I may reply that the 

 difference is due, not to the shape of the body, but to the 

 size of the muscles which attach the limbs to the body, and 

 which consequently partake of the massive character of the 

 legs. We must also remember that the pelvis is a portion of 

 the hind limb [see p. 31). 



Thickness of Limb. — Continuing the argument begun 

 in Chapter I., we find that the muscles of the limbs of 

 gallopers are comparatively long and slender. Hence, the 

 bones, being dependent on the muscles for their shape, must 

 partake of the same character. It is advantageous for 

 another reason that they should be slight ; for, were the bones 

 of the legs of the galloper massive, there would be entailed 

 a large amount of friction in the working of their joints, 

 with consequent loss of speed, which would be of little 

 importance in the heavy draught animal, in which the 

 opposite kind of conformation should be sought for. 



Comparative Length of Fore and Hind Limbs. — 



The conditions under which the limbs play their part in 

 locomotion, are so complex and varied, that I can lay down 

 rules on this subject only in very general terms. We must 

 also bear in mind that there is a certain limit of height 

 (largely influenced by breed) which the horse should not 

 exceed, and which has been discussed on page 148 et seq. 

 I may state the present question as follows : at any given 

 height, is it advantageous for the horse to be higher 

 at the withers than he is over the top of the croup, or vice 

 versa, when he is intended for galloping, or for heavy 

 draught ; and to what extent may such difference, if any, 



