the heels and frog, when left unpared and unrasped, are strong enough to meet all demands made upon them, at the same time they are not deprived of their physiological functions. The diminution in the weight of the shoe is a matter of some importance, in addition to these considerations. Of course these shoes are only needed for the fore-feet; the hind-feet shoes, so long as they are not over heavy, are level, and do not wound the other limbs, may be the ordinary pattern.
In describing the latest novelties in shoeing, we glanced at the method introduced by M. Charlier, and which is, to a great extent, only a modification of that recommended by Lafosse. So far as my experience has gone, I must give my testimony to its merits. The introducer asserts that it favours the elasticity, or lateral expansion, of the hoof; if any proof were needed that the lower border of the hoof does not expand it would be proved by the use of this incrusted shoe. Its great merits are its lightness, and the fact that it allows the sole, frog, and bars to participate in supporting weight and strain. This is a great object gained. But to thoroughly incrust the metal, which is scarcely the width of the wall, but is very much thicker than the ordinary shoe, a proportionate amount of horn must be removed from the best part of the foot, and when this ranure has been made, the hoof is seriously mutilated; the junction between the sole and crust has been considerably weakened, and this is of serious moment. The workman is in far too close proximity to the living tissues, and the greatest skill is needed to prevent the rim from encroaching on them when driven back.
