MR REEVE IN REPLY TO MR. GLOAG. 
197 
c, .* The frog. 
e, e , . . . . The shoe. 
It will here be perceived, that when a broad- webbed shoe, having 
a flat upper surface, is imbedded in the foot, it acts mechanically 
as an inflexible impediment to any descent of the sole, by shoring 
it up at that point at which its descent commences, viz. its junc- 
tion with the crust; whilst, on the contrary, the concavity, upon 
the upper surface of the shoe in Fig. 1, freely permits of that 
descent of the sole which would be opposed by the broad flat shoe 
in Fig. 2. 
So far, then, as the question of the descent of the sole is con- 
cerned, I maintain that it remains where I left it; and nothing 
would gratify me more than to hear that other competent and in- 
quiring members of the profession had tested it by following out 
to the letter the experiment as described in my paper of February 
last. 
With respect to those objections to which Mr. Gloag has 
alluded, I can only observe, that they had been anticipated and 
guarded against ; and I think, Sir, that you, who have seen the 
shoe in question, will admit that, from the strength and manner of 
its construction, there could have been no springing upwards of 
the bars into which the screws were inserted. 
We now come to the question of lateral expansion. As it 
would be mathematically impossible for the dome-like form of the 
sole to approximate nearer to that of a plane (which it must in 
descending) without extending its base, and consequently dilating 
the surrounding crust, thereby producing what is understood by 
lateral expansion, any experiment to demonstrate such expan- 
sion, after the descent of the sole has been proved, would be super- 
fluous, since, when the “ descent” is admitted, the “ expansion” 
is proved. Nevertheless, as I had made such an experiment, and 
reported the result, which has since been tested by Mr. Gloag, 
and alluded to by him, I must refer to it. 
