REVIEW.—ON THE CONFORMATION OR THE HORSE. 93 
which nicely fit without hurting us, than we can in shoes too large 
for us, in which our feet, anything but easy, are neither supported 
nor comfortably encased, and the conclusion will come home to us. 
“ It, perhaps, will be said that any latitude of elasticity of hoof 
is not rigorously called for, since the hoof may be encircled with¬ 
out any inconvenience by a band of iron nailed around the bottom 
of the wall. This specious objection may appear of weight to per¬ 
sons uninformed on the question, though it is really without founda¬ 
tion. Experience has shewn that the iron shoe is a necessary 
evil. In limiting the play of the hoof, it does harm to the natural 
functions of the foot, and provokes the contraction of its heels 
(hoof-bound), the compression of the tissues, and lameness of an 
incurable description. Never, or very rarely, will a horse prove 
hoof-bound that has never been shod; never will his foot grow 
deformed, contracted, painful, as is too often visible after shoeing : 
and so an infinity of contrivances have been set on foot to pre¬ 
serve the hoof under usage from having its expansion interfered 
with, and so to resolve this problem. Up to the present hour, how¬ 
ever, has experiment failed in any satisfactory result. 
“ If, after the manner of an arc, or springs which have a double 
action, the wall of the hoof bends but little at the centre, by which 
we mean, in technical language, the toe , the play of the extremities 
(the heels), which are thinned off, ought to be very great; and the 
posterior parts of the foot should possess the greatest elasticity. 
This disposition, so happily combined, explains why, in shoeing, 
the nails are kept as much as possible towards the toe, in order 
that the quarters and heels may enjoy the full extent of elasticity 
admitted them by the attachment of the hoof to the foot. This is 
the only means of alleviating as much as possible the evils in¬ 
contestably arising out of shoeing.’ , 
The extracts we have made will abundantly prove the truth of 
what we advanced at the commencement of this review, viz., that 
M. Richard’s work was far from being a mere descriptive outline 
of the conformation of the horse. On the contrary, we said he 
had entered both anatomically and physiologically into his subject, 
taking that comprehensive view of it which alone can convey to 
the mind of the reader the relations existing between external and 
internal parts, together with the operations reciprocally in force 
between the one and the other. In fact, the work is calculated not 
only to instruct in abstract “ conformation,” but at the same time 
to give its reader the reasons why such and such conformation is 
to be preferred to “ make and shape” of another or opposite cha- 
VOL. XXII. O 
