Professor H. Nilsson assembled powerful arguments concerning the artificial character of the so-called ‘family tree" of horse evolution. Nilsson’s statements have been translated, discussed, and illustrated in this article. On close analysis, the collection of "horse" remains is not a continuum of well-integrated fossils but an assemblage of separate groups varying widely in size and other criteria. Hyracotherium. (Eohippus), for example, was very likely not a horse but an animal quite like the contemporary Hyrax or Damans. Mesohippus and Parahippus remains represent a separate group that is not related to Hyracotherium or to Equus, the modern horse. The "family tree" of the horse is artificial because it has been constructed of non-equivalent parts which are unrelated. Evidence since Nilsson’s study is also reviewed. It is concluded that the horse family is unique and separate and that the evidence can, without any, weighting, be fitted to the case for special creation.