THE FIGURE SYSTEM.

In compiling come interesting statistics on last season's racing; m Englard the "Special Commissioner" of the London Spoilsman sho-s the record cf the vanou= families during the past season, and it will bo found that the figure, guide once more obtains abundant confirmation. We are bound (says the writer me-ntioned), of course, to attach weight to the fact that in the last volume of the Stud Book No. (2) farr-ily comprises inea-.-ly 200 more maros than No. (1). which is also outnumbered by No. 3. and it is hardly, therefore, to be expected No. (1) can quite hold its own when tested by the results of all the races in the country, though its record is still as good as

ever in the. classics During the In ct four seasons No. (2) frnvly bos won 869 ir.ccs; No. (<i) 679 laccf. No. (1) 597 rrccs, and No. .'3 578 races. No. (2) family headed tho 11- 1 in 1901 and 1902, and tlie pggrcgaro amount of stahes won by hrrscs of tho first four families since 18 c O is: No. (2), £213,795; No. {*), £203,605; No. (1), £169.534; and No. «, £143,780. Here aro the results ranged according to value of stake-b in the pa^t f-'eason : RACTNG- SEASON, 1903. In this table the? pace money in the fol'ow- | ing cases is included —Two "Thousand and | One Thousand Guineas, the Darby, the Oaks, . Princess of Y/ales and Jockey Club Stakes I (Newmarket), Eclipse Stakes (Sandown Park), j cincl the St. Lcgsr Stakes, a so all lacea m lieland of the value of £90 ard upwards.

No. (4) family, which was second last year, goes uv top, thanks to Rock Sand, -who contributed £22,633 of its total, but m regard to number of racre won the No. (2) family well holds its pride of place. Ncs. (5) and (1) come third and fourth respectively, No. (1), however, having rm advantage, of 46 in .•races won. Thus the first four places are onco more held by four out of the first five. Bruce Lowe families, but No. H -hcv/s a slight tendency to decline, though not more so than last year, when, as on che prese-nt occasion, it finished seventh. Im 1900 No. a came second wHi 170 race won. value £45,672, and ir> I Q ni it svas fourth with 142 wins, value £38,663. It is to bo feart-d that tut* Xo. 6 family, de- • spite its value, is past praying for, as it mow drops out of the- first 20, but it is tobe noted that in this 20 there are only three famiiiee which are of a lower figure than No. 20, and they, curiously enough, are Nos. 21, 22, and 23, No*. 6, 15, and 17 having fallen away and made- room for them. No. 16 family has once more been lifted to fifth place, mainly by Sceptre, and in due time- it may so assert itself as to merit a star, even, if it has not to be absolutely ra-.sed in the scheme of figure^. In No. (2) family no mare, produced a a winner of more than £5500 last year, Quintessence being the highest winner with over £140 short of that amount. To No. (2^ family, however, belongs the mare who has produced the winners of mo-t races this season, viz., Sierra, whose sons. Series, Sandal Beat and Sundridge won 12 events. Simena t\ dam of Henry the Fir-t and William Rufus, winners of ten races, and Belle Haine, the dam of Bellhor Tor (ten races), are good seconds." No. S<a family owes its position of sixth very largely to Pretty Polly and St. Amant, but such two-year-olds as these premise well for th 3 future of this family. Many cf the families come out strangely in accordance with their figure* ; thus No. S is eight and No. 12

is twelfth, while Nos. 7, 9, 10, H , and 13 are very close to their orthodox places. I must confes?, however to being somewhat disappointed in the failure of No. 19 to rise to a higher level than it has done. In France this family stands very high indeed, and in this country it has a great record for cups and other long-distance racc-^. I should add before concluding that the families which have wen as many as 100 or more races are Nos. (1), (2), S, (4), (5), 8, and 12, not a single outside figure having approached this measure of success, and thus if we place the families in accordance with the number of wins as given above we find the first seven places he-Id' thus, Bruce Lowe Number of Numbers. llaces Won . 1. Family No. (2) 220 2. Family No. (4) 160 3. Family No. (1) ... ' 149 4. Family No. 3 140 5. Family No, S 107 6. Family No. (5) 103 7. Family No, 13 100

Tin. concluding, the writer cf the article says: — Is it possible to doubt on the- above facts the value of the figures as a guide from which we may find assistance in mating our mares and in breeding or finding winners?

Bruce Number Lo'^e c>f R.:cc3 Value No Won. £ 1. Family No. (i) 1-0 (4 d orl-heat-) 6?,5»-;0 10 2. Family No. (2) 220 (3 e'ea i-litat.-) 57, i1l 5 3. l?.inii!y No. (5) ICS (I coa<'-heat) 41 0 9 5 4. Family No. (1) 1-M . ... 40,377 2 5. l«\nji]yNo. 16 KS U de.-1-hosit) :-9 !).io 0| 15. "Family No. li 77 57.4H5 0 7. F.imilyN^, S 341 :5j,«U 0 8. I'araily No. S 307 (2 dead- W s) 33 019 10 fl. Family No. 7 80 2-J,,'33 0 10. F.iiiiily ho. <•) 78 2,8 .1 0 11. FamlyNo. V.i 61 (1 dead heat) 20,51."") 13 12. Kjmily No 12 100 (I rcid-heat; 20,--22 0 n. Family No 11 39 (L dead-lieat) i:?.82l )7 14. Family £xo. 10 (57 10 7SO 10 15. Fami.y No. 22 24 J0.512 0 16. Family No. 19 45 9,102 0 17. Family No 23 45 8, --Z) 0 18. IVmilyNo. 20 £9 7.950 0 39. Family No. 21 . 21 4,100 lit 20. Family No. 18 11 4 003 0