THE FIGURE SYSTEM.

Otago Witness, Issue 2762, 20 February 1907, Page 52

THE FIGURE SYSTEM.

It will be -tidings of comfort and joy to the innumerable lovers of bloodstock that a new, revised, and enlarged edition of "Hermann Goos's Tables" is going to be published early in the new jear. The last edition was published in 1897, and it was then that the author adopted the Bruce Lowe figures, which made his work so invaluable for the purposes of reference. This old edition, however, is too out of date for the present-day purposes, and as the new one will include all the notable horses and mares in this country and abroad up to the end of 1906, there will no doubt be an eager rush for it, though the price will be £5 10s. With regard to the figures certain of our friends in Australia are for ever worrying themselves' by trying to demonstrate that various figures ought really to be identical. Thus they say that 24, 35, and 44 are, or ought to be, the same as No. 8, but this is work of absolute supererogation. No doubt if researches could be prosecuted into the remotor past, the merging of families in one another could be oarried on until we might reach — let us say — the original mare who went into the Ark. For all practical purposes the revised first volume of the "Stud Book" should be accepted as final, and the distribution of the families from that source is the only one w hich can be conveniently accepted. Even the Expectation branch of No. (4J family is wisely left undisturbed, for Messrs Weatherby a good many years ago gave their decision to that effect, and it is enough to watch the development of the families as Bruce Lowe figured them. Their remoter past is of' comparatively small significance. It is very well, on the other hand, to subdivide the best families as Mr Hermann Goos did in 1897, so as to show what particular branch of the family this or that animal belongs to, even as we now so often say the Paradigm branch or the Sunshine branch of No. (1) family. That, however, is a very different matter from troubling over futile arguments as to whether such-and-such rr.ares in the Ist Vol. General Stud Book ought not to be rrerged in a common figure. Any such proceeding tends to ob-

scure the lights which Bruce Lowe lit tor us. Our aim should be rather to subdivide existing families than to confuse them at their source, says the Special Commissioner. And ' now, according to custom, 1 am giving the results of all the races for the past season as they have come out on, the figures. That this is a much more crucial test than Bruce Lowe's own we all know, but the best families have asserted themselves, as they always do. If we regard the table from the point of view of the number of races won by each family, again, as last year, (1), (2), 3, (4), (5), and S are the only ones with the winners of over 100 races, and, curiously enough, they finish in the same order as they do in regard to the total amounts won. No. 19 family has made a considerable advance, as I fully anticipated that it would, and No. 16 is also much in the ascendant. In the first 20 there are only three of Bruce Lowe's first 20 "figures found missing, and these are Nos. 15, 17, and 18, who are replaced by Nos. 21, 22, and 42. That No. (1) has really done the best, having regard to the fact that it is not so numerously represented as No. (2), is, I think, apparent, for No. (2) really owes its position at the top of the list to Beppo's big victory in tho Jockey Club Stakes, while with a four-year-old like Cicera, three-year-olds like Spearmint and Flair, and two-year-olds like Galvani and Traquair, No. (1) gains, at anyrate, the moral victory, not but what No. (2) has Keystone II to 6ct off against the best of the others. There is, however, no really good two-year-old of No. (2) family so far as I am aware. No. 21, which comes up into ninth place for this season, owes its elevation to 6uch good representatives as Bachelor's Button, The White Knight, and Dinneford, and there are indications that it is likely to gain in strength. Even No. 6, which had been regarded as an extinct volcano, has again risen into the first twenty, though it may be doubtful if this good line will ever develop its old-time vitality. It must never be forgotten, however, that No. 6 blood is of infinite value in a pedigree, and to my " mind the appearance of that figure is always very welcome. During the last seven seasons the aggregate amounts won by the members of the first four families are as follow:— No. (2), £381,165; No. (4), £343,496; No. (1), £337,447; No. 3, £268,838, and with the possible exception of No. 16, no other family approaches the figures, which make a test far more searching than any Bruce Lowe himself ever applied. Turning to the number of actual races won in the same period— i.e., 1899-1906, No. (2) family horses have carried off 1329 races, No. (4) family 993 races, No. (1) family 964 races, and No. 3 family 874 races.

FAMILY FIGURES FOR SEASON 1906.

In the foregoing table no place money whatever is included, but al! Irish races of the net value of £80 and upwards are reckoned, whilst in all instances of deadheats only half the net amount of the stake is credited to each family. Now what can people who profess not to believe in the figure guide say to all this, except that No. '(1) is not actually at the top when tested yi this way. No reasonable being would ever have expected it to be so, for even in the earliest Hermann Goos Tabke, before Bruce Lowe's figures were ever heard of, it was pointed out that No. (1) family was specially notable for having produced the greatest number of classic winners, though it comprised considerably fewer mares than several of its rivals. It was, in fact, a case of quality, not quantity, with this family. It was not to bo supposed, when all the races of the year wore taken into account, numbers would not tell, and, therefore, No. (1) is to some extent overborne by Nos. (2) and (4), but it is right there all the same, and the first four families maintain their pride of the place easily enough, though not quite in their natural order.

¥ © o Value. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LI 12 IS 14 L 5 16 17 18 .9 !0 (2) (I) (4) 3 8 16 (6) 19 21 12 9 14 7 10 11 22 20 6 42 13 125 111 82 88 72 45 54. 87 10 43 33 37 33 35 32 22 22 22 12 25 231 (3 dead-heats) 184 (7 dead-heats) 166 155 142 (2 dead-heat^) 92 109 71 (1 dead-heat) 2« 67 (2 dead-heats) 69 (2 dead-heats) 60 E0 et (1 dead-hpat) 51 (6 dead-henta) 36 43 (1 dead-heat) 33 25 44 (Z dead-heati) £ 8. 70,270 0 67,312 5 4-2,031 10 41,861 9 40,880 5 31,669 IS 27,914 18 27,914 18 20,932 I** 15,839 6 14,197 0 13,547 0 12,785 10 12,61» 0 11,221 19 9,700 0 9.162 10 7,625 0 7,618 0 7,459 0