196 
MR. REEVE IN REPLY TO MR. GLOAG. 
This I cannot resist contrasting with paragraph 3d, page 140, of 
the same number, wherein he says, “ Having objected to the shoe 
intended to prove the fact of the descent of the sole , as used by 
Mr. Reeve , on the grounds, &c. &c. & c., I adopted some shoes 
with a trifling difference of construction.” How “ trifling” the 
difference, may be seen by comparing the descriptions of each. 
Now, I contend that the chief experiment, and that upon which 
the truth of the results given by myself rested, has really not been 
put to the test, but others substituted in its stead ; unless, indeed, 
Mr. Gloag can be understood to have submitted my plan to trial, 
by " objecting to the shoe intended to prove the descent of the 
sole,” and “ performed the experiments after the same manner as 
my own,” by adopting some shoes with “ a trifling difference of 
construction,” whereby he proved “ the truth of his previous 
statements,” and “ therefore considered himself justified in main- 
taining his first opinion.” 
Whether the readers of The Veterinarian will perceive the 
same consequence, I cannot pretend to decide. 
It is evident that Mr. Gloag did not rightly understand the con- 
struction of my shoe from the description which I gave of it, or 
he would not have spoken of “ the pieces which were welded to 
the heels and crossed the frog ;” for in the shoe which I used, for 
the purpose of testing the descent of the sole, no such bars existed. 
And although Mr. Gloag seems to consider that the shoe which 
he has tried is a satisfactory test of the non-descent of the sole, I 
certainly do not ; and will, therefore, take the liberty of pointing 
out the leading objections, both in its construction and application, 
which, I apprehend, have induced such very opposite results. 
The shoes employed by Mr. Gloag were very broad in the 
web, varying from If inch to 2§ inches in the breadth of cover. 
In some the upper surface was slightly bevelled, in others it was 
perfectly flat. And with regard to their application, it is re- 
marked “ that the trial-shoe was firmly imbedded, by burning a 
seating.” 
It will be seen, upon reference, that the shoe with which I 
experimented had an ordinary seating, i. e., of the breadth, or 
very little more, of the crust, and that its concavity prevented its 
pressing in any degree upon the sole of the foot. 
Now, in order to comprehend more fully the opposite effects of 
these shoes, we will refer to the accompanying illustrations; 
No. 1 being a transverse section of a hoof shod with my shoe ; 
No. 2 being a similar section to which the experimental shoe of 
Mr. Gloag is applied ; the one being imbedded, the other not. 
