This is another objection. A greater one lies in the danger of a shoe breaking or coming off when there is not another at hand to take its place. The horse could not travel very far on the sole and frog alone, and the road-side farrier would have much difficulty in attaching an ordinary shoe.
To be safe, it must not be deeply incrusted, especially in thin hoofs, and then the portion projecting above the level of the sole, from its thinness, is quickly worn. It certainly prevents slipping on pavement, but, it would appear, is not found so beneficial on ice. As a winter shoe, I fear it will be useless, as there is no means of attaching anything to it to give the horse a grip on ice; even frost-nails cannot be advantageously used. Again, as a pathological shoe, when dressings or other appliances are required for the sole, this will afford no assistance in retaining them, like the ordinary shoe. It must always be fitted hot; in this respect it is inferior to the sub-plantar shoe, which, on an emergency, can be fitted and attached without a forge.
It will not be suitable for every description of hoof, particularly one in which there is any tendency to separation between the sole and wall; neither will it altogether suffice for hunting or racing purposes. Of course, on any kind of horse, one would not think of applying it indiscriminately to the hind-feet; indeed on these there is no necessity for it. On the fore-feet of a hunter it does not afford, one would think, a sufficient grip of the ground, and appears to offer no advantages beyond its being, perhaps, a trifle lighter than the shoe I have proposed. The hunter's sole and frog, if left unpared, receive
