On the basis of the relative leg positions one could assume that the elephant in is trotting. However, trot is a running sequence, and elephants generally do not run. Although Asian elephants (Elephas maximus
L.) can move at speeds up to 25 km/h and at this maximal speed some features of their locomotion conform to certain definitions of running 
, their usual motion is walking. Although the fastest gait used by elephants has been variously described as a walk, amble, trot, pace, rack or a running walk, even fast moving elephants maintain the same walking foot-fall pattern (lateral sequence: -LH-LF-RH-RF-) and always keep at least one foot in contact with the ground 
. Consequently, elephants do not trot. This is the reason why we considered the picture in as a walking depiction, rather than a trotting sequence. On the other hand, would be a correct motion depiction, if it represented a trotting elephant. In this case the error rate of prehistoric walking depictions would decrease, which could strengthen our main conclusion, that prehistoric walking depictions are more accurate than the modern ones.
On the basis of the leg attitudes could, in principle, depict a trotting horse. However, because the fore legs of trotting horses are never lifted so high, and the angle between the femur and tarsus cannot be nearly 90° this should be a walking horse. This is evident from the series of pictures taken of trotting horses by Muybridge (1887), for example.
The horse leg poses of cavalry statues are often symbolic: an elevated right forefoot, for instance, might indicate that the rider (e.g. a general) died in combat 
. Such symbolic depictions can result in erroneous walking illustrations. We admit that, of course, in our present work there is some speculation, because we could not ask the prehistoric or modern artists why they have composed certain drawings and depicted quadrupeds in a particular way. We presented here an optimal and simple way to compare one aspect, namely the accuracy of quadrupeds in a walking mode of locomotion. In this respect, it was irrelevant whether the artists’ intention was to show an animal in a natural or unnatural pose.
The depiction of animals dates back to the prehistoric era, when people used cavepaintings and carvings to illustrate the animals they hunted. Since the observation of animals was not merely a pastime, but a matter of survival, we can suppose that compared to artists of latter eras, when people were not as directly connected to nature, the creators of such cavepaintings and carvings observed their subjects better and thus they depicted the walk of the animals in a more life-like manner. This is, in fact the conclusion of our examinations.
The likelihood of pure chance can be calculated from the unity walking matrix with a single case in its every cell: In this case the numbers of correct (grey cells) and incorrect (white cells) quadruped walking illustrations are Ncorrect
16 and Nincorrect
44, resulting in an error rate of r
73.3% corresponding with mere chance. Hence if an artist chose purely randomly the leg postures in a quadruped walking illustration, that is selected randomly from the walking matrix (), then the leg attitudes would be erroneous with a chance of 73.3%.
The 8×8 walking matrix of the stride of the horse walking from left to right.
The lowest rate of error in quadruped walking illustrations analized by us, was found in cave art 46.2%, which is close to the value found by Horvath et al
having examined the walking illustrations in natural history museums, anatomy text-books and toy figurines (46.6%). This near 50% value does not mean that prehistoric men illustrated quadruped motion by chance as we have just stated. Compared to the 73.3% value the 46.2% rate of error is fairly low, which shows that 53.8% of the prehistoric illustrations are correct and that prehistoric man was an apt observer. This is understandable since their hunting lifestyles were strongly dependent on the quadruped animals they hunted, and prehistoric artists might merely depicted the animals as they observed them during hunting.
The 46.2% error rate of the prehistoric quadruped walking illustrations is nearly half of the 83.5% error rate of the pre-Muybridgean illustrations. This is surprising, since it could be justly expected that the prehistoric man, with a primitive culture and artistic techniques, would work with a much greater rate of error than his later counterparts. Prehistoric men illustrated the walking of quadrupeds with almost the same error rate (46.2%) as the taxidermists of natural history museums (41.1−43.1%) 
The 65.2% error rate of the walking quadruped illustrations dating from after prehistoric times is only 8.1% less then the 73.3% of illustrating randomly. Therefore we can say that the historic artists in effect, merely illustrated the walking of quadrupeds by chance. Prior to the works of Muybridge but during the historic era the error rate in depicting quadruped motion was 83.5%, whereas after Muybridge this value decreased to 57.9%. This 25.6% decrease is most logically attributed to the positive effect of Muybridge’s work and the spread of photography on the artistic community. The post-Muybridgean 57.9% error rate is approximately that of the 63.6% error rate of the animal anatomy text-books 
, probably because these text-books also date from after Muybridge.
Interestingly, before Muybridge, the 83.5% error rate is greater than the accidental 73.3%. Hence, the artists predating Muybridge did not illustrate the walking of quadrupeds by chance, instead they might depicted quadrupeds possibly by mimicking earlier, erroneous works.
The rate of error in the depiction of walking in horse-statues is 65.5%, which is practically tha same as the error rate of 65.1% in paintings, drawings and reliefs. However, the most commonly occuring error in horse-statues is the cell Bd cell in the walking-matrix, whilst in paintings, drawings and reliefs the most common error falls in the cell Eh. The reason for this may be that quadrupeds depicted with erroneous walking in paintings, drawings and reliefs cannot fall over. On the other hand, an error in the leg positioning can substantially reduce the static stability of an entire horse-statue. In this way, certain errors cannot occur in the sculpting of horse-statues.
We found that modern artists err considerably more often (65.2%) in horse-walk depictions than do taxidermists, anatomy text-book writers and toy figurine designers (50.4%) 
In this work we showed that prehistoric men (upper palaeolithic Homo sapiens called simply as “caveman” in this work) depicted quadruped walking more correctly than modern artists. We admit that it is difficult to scientifically assess this surprising fact. It would be difficult to perform a really fair comparison between (prehistoric and modern) artistic quadruped walking illustrations and the real walk of living quadrupeds, because there is no proof that the investigated examples of modern art intended to represent walking in a standard way. Being paintings or sculptures, for instance, these are static poses of whatever motion the artists wanted to express, not necessarily a standard walk. Here we tried to study this problem as correctly as possible: We disregarded any hypothetical or speculative artistic aim, and compared the leg attitudes of quaruped walking depictions in the fine arts with those of the real walking gaits of horses. As results, we obtained raw numbers of the incorrect and correct artistic walking illustrations, from which our final message, the error rates were derived for different (prehistoric, pre- and post-Muybridgean) epochs. This is the maximum of what can scientifically be done in this topic.