There are several reasons to reject an interpretation that Daniel 8 predicts the rise and career of Antiochus as any fulfillment (including an “apotelesmatic” one) of the “little horn.” For example:
(1) “Them” in “out of one of them” at the beginning of verse 9 most naturally refers to the nearest antecedent: the immediately preceding “four winds of heaven” at the end of verse 8. So the “little horn” need not arise from a Hellenistic kingdom at all, but can simply come from one of the directions toward which Alexander’s kingdom was divided.
(2) Daniel 8:9, presenting the “little horn,” does not continue the description of the Hellenistic kingdoms, but begins a new literary unit containing elements equivalent to those found in the earlier paragraphs regarding the Medo-Persian ram and the Hellenistic he-goat: identification of origin, directions of expansion, and indication of power/greatness. This implies that the “little horn” is independent of the foregoing Hellenistic powers rather than continuing one of them (Martin Pröbstle, “Truth and Terror: A Text Oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9-14 [Ph.D. dissertation; Andrews University, 2006], 534-537).
(3) In Daniel 8 the Medo-Persian ram “magnified himself” (verse 4), Alexander’s Greek goat “magnified himself exceedingly” (verse 8), and the “little horn” “grew exceedingly great” (verse 9). If Antiochus were the “little horn,” how could his greatness be comparable to that of Alexander the Great, or even mighty Medo-Persia? Rather than expanding his empire, he failed to conquer Egypt and was driven out of Palestine by the Maccabees.
For more detail, see William Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation (ed. Frank Holbrook; Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 1; Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 31-66; Desmond Ford, Daniel (Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1978), 164, 188, 191; Gane, Who’s Afraid of the Judgment?, 78-86.http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/World%20Evangelical/Gane,%20Christ%20at%20his%20sanctuary.pdf
The second reason mentioned above correlates with several aspects of the previous post, namely that the linguistic features (the word ''devour'') that are only connected to the the bear (Medo-Persia) and the fourth beast in Daniel 7 are paralleled in Daniel 8 by the three conquest areas which also only appear in connection with the ram (Medo-Persia) and the little horn.
This strongly indicates that the bear and fourth beast have their parallel in the ram and the little horn.