NAVICULARTHRITIS. 141 



This leads us to an important part of our subject — 

 The Connexion between Contraction and Navicular- 

 THRITIS. — Of contraction of the hoof there are two kinds : — one is 

 a contraction of the heels, called lateral contraction ; the other, 

 contraction of the hoof y?'om below upwards, or vertical contrac- 

 tion : by Mr. Turner called " occult contraction." That of which 

 Coleman is here speaking, and which, in fact, is meant when " con- 

 traction" is talked about, is an anormal approximation of the heels — 

 and sometimes quarters as well — of the hoof. The circumstance, 

 so well-known and appreciated, of horses lame from navicular- 

 thritis, so far from having contracted feet, possessing commonly 

 what are called '' open" or ''good" feet, clearly indicates that navi- 

 cularthritis in nowise owes its existence to lateral contraction of 

 the hoof. The fact of so many horses formerly being considered 

 lame from contraction, whereas, now-a-days, contraction is so little 

 heeded that a case of lameness from it seems a rare occurrence, 

 would appear to argue the contrary, viz. that navicularthritis must 

 frequently beget contracted hoofs. We cannot believe, knowing 

 what we do now, that the many cases treated in by-gone days at 

 the Veterinary College for "contraction," were all lamenesses of 

 that nature; on the contrary, we would almost take upon our- 

 selves, at this remote period of time even, to pronounce that all 

 were assuredly not. What were the exceptions, then ? Why, 

 probably, cases of navicularthritis, which, from want of proper 

 treatment, had become incurably and permanently lame, and in 

 which unremitting pain or uneasiness of foot, had, from constant 

 favouring and resting of the lame foot, engendered contraction. 



It is pretty evident, from what has been stated (at pp. 122-3) 

 that Moorcroft, in such cases, saw cause of lameness beyond the con- 

 traction of the hoof. When Sir Edward Codrington wrote to him, 

 saying, he thought his horse was lame from "contraction," Moor- 

 croft's reply was, 1 fear yours is "a complicated case;" adding, 

 " I have put you to the expense of a long letter, in order that you 

 may form some opinion whether your horse is lame from pure 

 contraction, or from contraction connected with deep-seated injury 

 of the foot!' Language such as this is pretty indicative that 

 Moorcroft was neither in ignorance of the true cause of lameness 

 in this case of — at all events, suspected or assumed — navicular- 



