“Magne says, that in Flanders, a cow is considered a good milker, ‘especially when towards the middle of the spine the apophyses (or projections) are separated or scattered so as to leave a space between of about two finger-breadths,’ for the reason that, when the spine is thus formed, the haunches are better spread, and the thighs and croup larger. The other members of the body are also better developed, the basin is ampler, and the organs placed in this cavity, as well as the udder, are more voluminous. “Now, would our dairymen consider this a more certain indication of milk, than a good escutcheon? “Without regarding the escutcheon as an infallible sign of quality and quantity of milk, I believe it to be one of the best indications of milk, that nature has provided; but in the use of this system, we must consider:— 1. The breed. 2. The age. 3. The feed. 4. The treatment (present and past.) 5. The health. “A good, not to say a thorough, understanding of the Guenon system, cannot be obtained by casual observation, but only by the most painstaking examination of many animals, extending over a long period of time.” Objections to the System and to the Report of the Commission. M. Guenon in his Treatise on Milk Cows, does not give any positive reasons why the escutcheon is indicative of the yield. He rested content with the fact, that he had proved it so before many learned men, and risked his reputation upon publishing the facts. The system as far as we have been able to trace it, has always been verified by those who have _thoroughly studied it, and tested it by extended practice according to the rules of Guenon_. The principal cavilers against it, either admit they have not constantly pursued it, or show by their writings their lack of sufficient knowledge of it. The report of the Pennsylvania commission has incited several to write against the system. The principal paper produced was one read before a meeting of the State Board of Agriculture, by Eastburn Reeder, and which he had reprinted in several papers. Of this essay, it is sufficient to say, he showed he had not studied nor practiced the system thoroughly, and because he could not understand it and got befogged, he quoted a large mass of scientific matter to show the system could not be true. These attempts at argument are so quietly, but completely, set aside in the essay of Prof. D. E. Salmon, D. V. M., on Contested Dairy Questions, quoted below, that we shall not discuss them further. For we cannot any more tell _absolutely and positively_ why the escutcheon reveals what it does, than we can tell why a _black_ cow eating _green_ grass, converts _red_ blood into _white_ milk, than we can tell _why_ the green grass grows. In both questions at issue, we have certain facts and theories to guide our reason and judgment about them,