SPLENTS. 51 



predominant it absolutely appears that nei- 

 ther of the authors here quoted (notwith- 

 standing the degree of estimation they may 

 be held in) gave himself tune, even for a mo- 

 ment, to consider the nature of the ^' excres- 

 cence'' he means or wishes to describe, or the 

 method of cure he may be naturally anxious 

 to recommend. 



And this the more powerfully appears^ by 

 the I'idiculous attempt to destroy what they 

 acknowledge an apparent ossification or bony 

 substance, seated upon a solid body under the 

 integuments, without a destruction of the 

 integuments themselves, or a palpable in- 

 jury to the component parts. But to bring 

 this matter as near the truth as conjecture 

 can justify, we will (by allowmg an alterna- 

 tive,) take one or other for the fact, and 

 draw what must appear a very natural and 

 just conclusion ; that is, whether the protu- 

 berance upon any part of the shank-bone, 

 called a Splent, is an enlargement of the^<?- 

 riosteum (or membrane covering the bone,) 

 by an original rupture of the small vessels 

 and the extravasated fluid collected, and be- 

 come indurated by time? or, a callosity ori- 



E 2 



