I 
308 
■wide ; the ribs less round than is preferred for grazing stock ; the flanks 
deep and full; the hind quarters heavy in proportion to the fore ones,, 
the preponderance arising from depth and length rather than width; the 
thighs thin; the tail slender, except at the upper end, wdiere it should be 
large—it should not rise much above the level of the rump; the legs 
rather short, and small and flat below the knee and hock; the skin of 
middling thickness, mellow and elastic, and of a yellowish color as indi¬ 
cative of richness of milk; the hair thickly set and soft; the udder ca¬ 
pacious, spreading wide on the body, but not hanging low, without fleshi¬ 
ness, but having plenty of loose skin when empty; the teats of medium 
size, regularly tapering from the upper end, widely separated from each 
other, and placed well on the forward part of the bag; the milk veins : 
large, springing out near the fore legs, and well developed to their ap¬ 
parent junction with the udder. The points relating to the skin and ud¬ 
der, though mentioned last, are more than any others, perhaps, indicative 
of good milking qualities. 
It may be thought that something should be said here in regard to a 
theory of foretelling the properties of cows by “escutcheons,” or certain 
figures formed by the growth of the hair in different directions, as promul¬ 
gated by Guenon. Whatever foundation there may be to the theory, the 
exactness that is claimed for it is evidently fallacious. So long as the quan¬ 
tity of milk which a cow is capable of yielding depends on the kind and 
quantity of food eaten, and various other contingencies, it is simply non¬ 
sense to lay down the precise number of quarts and fractions of a quart 
which one with any particular marks will give for a specified time. Again, 
many of the best cows (I speak from close personal observations) have 
none of the so-called “escutcheons” whatever. But granting the theory 
correct, which it is not, it only relates to the quantity of milk, which, ex¬ 
cept where the article is sold, is not a criterion of the comparative value 
of the animal. Every farmer knows that for butter, a cow giving twelve £ 
quarts of milk a day is frequently worth more than one giving twice the 
quantity. But the system is still further objectionable in having no refer¬ 
ence to the proper shape and constitution of the animal. Admitting a 
cow to have the milking properties which the rule would allow, she may 
still be a very bad animal from which to propagate a stock. She may 
be ill-formed, large-boned, a great consumer of food in proportion to the 
profit yielded, and of poor constitution. The narrow views of many 
I 
