712 
PERIPLANTAR SHOEING. 
have tried it, stated my views with regard to it, and continue 
to maintain that, in principle—anatomically and physiolo¬ 
gically—it is the most perfect system of shoeing yet intro¬ 
duced, fulfilling, as it does, more of the requirements of 
scientific farriery than any other mode. Such also is the 
opinion of the Editor of the Field (who is unfairly quoted to 
my disadvantage), in the numher for August 21st. Its suc¬ 
cess certainly effectually demolishes the fantastic ‘Subration” 
theory, and proves that horn allowed to come in contact with 
the ground, as nature willed it, is the hest medium for dis¬ 
persing the concussion resulting from the foot striking against 
the ground. The horse’s foot is not a wheel (as it is not the 
human foot), neither is the shoe a tire (as it is neither a shooting 
hoot, nor a dancing slipper); though wooden wheels, if made 
strong enough, will sustain wear on paved streets. It is when 
the wheelwright reduces the wood to the lowest degree in 
order to secure elegance, &c., that he must protect it by tires. 
I am not aware, however, that horseshoes became elongated 
with wear, though certainly, like tires, when worn out they 
are liable to come off. I have not yet heard of any wheel¬ 
wright who recommends leather to be inserted between tire 
and wheel, as is suggested at page 647 of the Veterinarian, 
The “ stout ” shoes don’t appear to be quite effective in 
destroying vibration, and “cow-dung” stopping is yet needed 
with the infallible system of shoeing. Does the wheelwright 
apply or recommend this frog-destroying material for his 
wheels ? 
We all know, or ought to know, for it has been so stated 
in the pages of the Veterinarian ever since its commence¬ 
ment, that, practically, the lower border of the hoof does not 
expand, and in February last I explained to the Veterinary 
Surgeon who now tells us it is quite time we should all dis¬ 
card such an idea, why I was led to believe that such a pro¬ 
perty—in the extended sense in which it has been viewed by 
some writers—does not exist, and why there was no necessity 
for it. It is perhaps an error to assert that M. Charlier claims 
as one of the advantages of his shoe that it admits of expansion 
of the foot. Nowhere does he claim this as an advantage, so 
far as I can trace in his writings, but he casually mentions 
that it will not prevent any expansion that may take place. 
His method is, perhaps, one of the best illustrations we could 
produce in proof that no expansion takes place, and this 
was pointed out to my visitor in February. 
I can well understand that weak flat feet never improve, 
and always require “ stout ” shoes (which this veterinary 
surgeon himself designates “ heavy,” and then accuses me of 
