deliberation than ranging with the lighter guns, though upon the same general lines. Parts of the process may, however, be omitted in certain circumstances. Heavy guns use high-explosive (lyddite) shells and time shrapnel, the former for ranging and for demolishing cover, the latter against personnel. Laying is usually indirect. The tactical principles upon which heavy artillery does its work are based, in the main, on the long range (up to 10,000 yds.) and great shell-power of the guns. This power enables the artillery to reach with effect targets which are beyond the range of lighter ordnance, and it is, therefore, considered possible to disperse the guns in batteries, and even in sections of two guns, along the front of the army, without forfeiting the power of concentrating their fire on any point—a power which otherwise they would not possess owing to their want of mobility. At the same time it is not forbidden to bring them into line with the rest of the artillery, in order to achieve a decisive result. In the attack, beside the general task of supplementing the effect of other natures of ordnance, heavy artillery may demolish cover, buildings, &c., held by the enemy, and during the infantry assault they may do excellent service in sweeping a great depth of ground, their smaller angle of descent, and the greater remaining velocity and heavier driving charge of their shrapnel, as compared with field guns, enabling them to do this effectively. In the defence, long-range fire has great value, especially in sweeping approaches which the enemy must use. In pursuit, the heavy artillery may be able to shell the main body of the enemy during its retreat, even if it has left a rearguard. In retreat, the want of mobility of these guns militates against their employment in exposed positions, such as rearguards usually have to take up.
Bibliography.[1]—Amongst general historical works may be mentioned Napoleon III. and Col. Favé, Études sur le passé et l’avenir de l’artillerie (Paris. 1846–1871); C. von Decker, Geschichte des Geschützwesens (Berlin, 1822); H. W. L. Hime, Stray Military Papers (London, 1901); Die Beziehung Friedrichs des Grossen zu seiner Artillerie (Berlin, 1865); H. von Müller, Die Entwickelung der Feldartillerie, 1815–1892 (Berlin, 1893–1894); J. Campana, L’Artillerie de campagne, 1792–1901 (Paris, 1901); v. Reitzenstein, Das Geschützwesen, &c. in Hannover und Braunschweig 1365 bis zur Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1900); Kretschmar, Gesch. d. sächsischen Feldart. 1620–1878 (1879); Schöning, Gesch. des brandenbg.-preuss. Art. (1844–1845); Schneller, Litteratur d. Artillerie (1768); v. Tempelhof, Gesch. d. Artillerie (1797); Duncan, Hist. of the Royal Artillery. A complete bibliography and criticism of the artillery works of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries will be found in Max Jähns, Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften, pp. 221-236, 382-424, 621, 658 and 747-752. For the early 17th century, Diego Ufano, Tratado de la Artilleria (1613) is a standard treatise of the time, but the mystery preserved by artillerists in regard to their arm is responsible for an astonishing dearth of artillery literature even in the time of the Thirty Years’ War. In 1650 appeared Casimir Simienowicz’ Ars magnae artilleriae, an English translation of which was published in London in 1729, and in 1683 Michael Mieth published Artilleriae Recentior Praxis. The first edition of Surirey de S. Remy, Mémoires d’Artillerie, appeared in Paris in 1697. With the reorganization of the arm in the early 18th century came many manuals and other works (see Jähns, op. cit. pp. 1607-1621 and 1692-1698), amongst which may be mentioned the marquis de Quincy’s Art de la guerre (1726). From 1740 onwards numerous manuals appeared, mostly official règlements—see French General Staff, L’Artillerie française au XVIIIᵉ siècle (1908); and the tactical handling of the arm is treated in general works, such as Guibert’s, on war. See also de Morla, Tratado de la Artilleria (1784), translated into German by Hoyer (Lehrbuch der Art.-Wissenschaft, Leipzig, 1821–1826); Du Service de l’artillerie à la guerre (Paris, 1780, German translation, Dresden, 1782, and English, by Capt. Thomson, R.A., London, 1789), Bardet de Villeneuve’s Traité de l’artillerie (Hague, 1741), and Hennébert, Gribeauval, Lieut.-Général des armées du Roy (Paris, 1896). Important works of the period 1800–1850 are Scharnhorst, Handbuch der Artillerie (Hanover, 1804–1806, French translation by Fourcy, Traité sur l’artillerie, Paris, 1840–1841); Rouvroy, Vorlesungen über die Artillerie (Dresden, 1821–1825); Timmerhans, Essai d’un traité d’artillerie (Brussels, 1839–1846); C. v. Decker, Die Artillerie für alle Waffen (1826); Griffiths, The Artillerist’s Manual (Woolwich, 1840); Piobert, Traité d’artillerie (Paris, 1845–1847); Taubert (translated by Maxwell), Use of Field Artillery on Service (London, 1856); Capt. Simmonds, R.A., Application of Artillery in the Field (London, 1819); Gassendi, Aide-mémoire à l’usage des officiers d’artillerie (Paris, 1819). See also Girod de l’Ain, Grands artilleurs, Drouot, Sénarmont, Éblé (Paris, 1894). Among the numerous works on modern field artillery may be mentioned Prince Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen, Briefe über Artillerie (Berlin, 1887, 2nd ed., English translation by Col. Walford, Letters on Artillery, Woolwich, 1887); Hoffbauer, Taktik der Feldartillerie, 1866 und 1870–1871 (Berlin, 1876), and Applikatorische Studie über Verwendung der Artillerie (Berlin, 1884); Erb, L’Artillerie dans les batailles de Metz (Paris, 1906); Leurs, L’Art. de campagne prussienne 1864–1870 (Brussels, 1874); v. Schell, Studie über Taktik der Feldartillerie (quoted above); Hennébert, Artillerie moderne (Paris, 1889); and for quick-firing artillery, Langlois, Artillerie de campagne en liaison avec les autres armes (Paris, 1892 and 1907); Wille, Feldgeschütz der Zukunft (Berlin, 1891); Waffenlehre (2nd ed., 1901); and Zur Feldgeschützfrage (Berlin, 1896); Rohne, Die Taktik der Feldartillerie (Berlin, 1900), Studie über d. Schnellfeuergeschütze in Rohrrücklauflafette (Berlin, 1901), Die französische Feldartillerie (Berlin, 1902); Entwicklung des Massengebrauchs der Feldartillerie (Berlin, 1900); and articles in Jahrbücher f. d. Deutsche Armee und Marine (October 1901 and January 1905); Hoffbauer, Die Frage des Schnellfeuerfeldgeschützes (Berlin, 1902), and Verwendung der Feldhaubitzen (Berlin, 1901); Wangemann, Für die leichte Feldhaubitze (Berlin, 1904); von Reichenau, Studie über . . . Ausbildung der Feldart. (Berlin, 1896), Einfluss der Schilde auf die Entwicklung des F.-A. Materials, and Neue Studien über die Entwicklung der Feldart. (Berlin, 1902 and 1903); Smekal, Führung und Verwendung der Divisions-Artillerie (Vienna, 1901); Korzen and Kühn, Waffenlehre (Vienna, 1906); G. Rouquerol, Emploi de l’artillerie de campagne à tir rapide (Paris, 1901), and Organisation de l’artillerie de campagne (Paris, 1903); Girardon-Lagabbe, Organisation du matériel de l’artillerie de campagne (Paris, 1903); and in English, Capt. P. de B. Radcliffe’s translation of Rouquerol’s work (The Tactical Employment of Quick-firing Field Artillery, London, 1903), and especially Lt.-Col. H. A. Bethell, Modern Guns and Gunnery (Woolwich, 1907). See also the current drill manuals of the British, French and German artillery. (C. F. A.)
ARTIODACTYLA (from Gr. ἄρτιος, even, and δάκτυλος, a finger or toe, “even-toed”), the suborder of ungulate mammals in which the central (and in some cases the only) pair of toes in each foot are arranged symmetrically on each side of a vertical line running through the axes of the limbs. As contrasted with the Perissodactyla living, and in a great degree extinct, Artiodactyla are characterized by the following structural features. The upper premolar and molar teeth are not alike, the former being single and the latter two-lobed; and the last lower molar of both first and second dentition is almost invariably three-lobed. Nasal bones not expanded posteriorly. No alisphenoid canal. Dorsal and lumbar vertebrae together always nineteen, though the former may vary from twelve to fifteen. Femur without third trochanter. Third and fourth digits of both feet almost equally developed, and their terminal phalanges flattened on their inner or contiguous surfaces, so that each is not symmetrical in itself, but when the two are placed together they form a figure symmetrically disposed to a line drawn between them. Or, in other words, the axis or median line of the whole foot is a line drawn between the third and fourth digits (fig. 1). Lower articular surface of the astragalus divided into two nearly equal facets, one for the navicular and a second for the cuboid bone. The calcaneum with an articular facet for the lower end of the fibula. Stomach almost always more or less complex. Colon convoluted. Caecum small. Placenta diffused or cotyledonary. Teats either few and inguinal, or numerous and abdominal.
Artiodactyla date from the Eocene period, when they appear to have been less numerous than the Perissodactyla, although at the present day they are immeasurably ahead of that group, and form indeed the dominant ungulates. As regards the gradual specialization and development of the modern types, the following features are noteworthy.
1. As regards the teeth, we have the passage of a simply tubercular, or bunodont (βουνός, a hillock) type of molar into one in which the four main tubercles, or columns, have assumed a crescentic form, whence this type is termed selenodont (σελήνη, the new moon). Further, there is the modification of the latter from a short-crowned, or brachyodont type, to one in which the columns are tall, constituting the hypsodont, or hypsiselenodont, type. It is noteworthy, however, that in some instances there appears to have been a retrograde modification from the selenodont towards the bunodont type, the hippopotamus being a case in point. Other modifications are the loss of the upper incisors;
- ↑ Most of the works named deal with technical questions of equipment, ammunition, ballistics, &c.
