If a horse of the hackney type and a zebra were skinned and the bodies of the two animals then examined I suppose a competent anatomist would find some difficulty in distinguishing one from the other so closely do these two allied species of equidæ, one wild and the other domesticated, resemble one another in structure. But in this as in many other questions _form_ is not to be considered alone. The colouration of the two animals is strikingly different, but, in its humble way, the difference of their patterns of hair-arrangement is worthy of notice. The horse in different specimens chosen from a large group will exhibit patterns in the frontal, pectoral and inguinal regions constantly, and variably in less common regions, axillary, cervical and gluteal, that is to say, in six different areas. I have examined many zebras, living and dead, and find no constant pattern in the whole of its large surface of skin except an ill-developed frontal and a very small cervical one--_two in all_. The mere numerical difference is not the only important one, for the insignificance of the size of the two zebra patterns and the constancy and high development of many of those of the horse are not less significant from the present point of view. I submit that these two animals carry about with them on their hairy coats indubitable records of their personal and ancestral habits. Attention to the facts of a horse’s life and certain related and contrasted facts of the lives of other animals, of which the zebra may be taken as a type, will show the reasons why these patterns are to be looked upon as registers of long-past and present activities of the species concerned. The horse has been developed out of a wild plastic stock with some such ancestors as the wild horse of Przewalski, lately brought to Europe, by a process of selection by man during a thousand generations, first in its Central Asian cradle and later all over the civilized world. It has been as much _made by man_ for his purposes in locomotion as a locomotive engine has been made by him. The one has been produced in accordance with the laws of applied physics and the other by those of biology. His locomotive life has come to pass for the needs of higher, or at any rate more cunning creatures, who have availed themselves of the potentialities provided by Nature. The zebra in its habits differs from the horse in the simple, but fundamental point that the former lives the ordinary active life of a wild animal for its own needs of protection against foes and search for food, the latter has not only this activity of life in its organisation, but has, super-added to it by domestication, all the locomotive life of a beast of burden. The zebra presents few, if any, of those phenomena which I have often termed Animal Pedometers,[50] so characteristic of the hairy coat of the horse I am reverting here again to the region of metaphor for which I offer no excuse, but only a few remarks as to the use and