338 



THE farmers' cabinet. 



VOL. I. 



This is also a " mistake." The term hollow 

 horn is used in a generic sense, as the 

 name of a disease, and not to express the 

 condition of the horn merely. It is this dis- 

 ease, placed in contradistinction to a mere 

 holiowness of the horn, which is denied. 

 Hence. I have denied, and still do deny, the 

 existence of hollow horn, and admit the pos- 

 sibility of horns becoming hollow from ordi- 

 nary caries, like other bones. The horns are 

 always hollow, — they may become more so 

 by caries of the pith, without the animal hav- 

 ing hollow horn. Polled, or hornless cattle, 

 are supposed to be affected with the same 

 disease. They are said, and with equal pro- 

 priety, to have hollow horn, and they are 

 treated much in the same way as horned cat- 

 tle, by boring. "Subscriber" will now un- 

 derstand this seeming paradox. That cattle 

 have not always hollow horn when their horns 

 are hollow. 



In the next column, "Subscriber" says 

 "suppose I were to say to Observer, that 

 there is something wrong in the generally 

 received opinion, of bones being liable to 

 waste and decay, &c. would he not say to 

 me that this opinion was founded upon fact ; 

 that the testimony was ample to satisfy any 

 unprejudiced mind 1 Would he not refer 

 me to authentic history of diseased bones 1 

 And would he not be surprised if I refused 

 to admit the facti" Yes, most assuredly I 

 would. But suppose " Subscriber" had given 

 facts and reasons to prove the opinion erro- 

 neous, that he had pointed out sources of de- 

 ception, sufficient to create strong doubts of 

 its correctness, and on the faith of these, had 

 called upon me for testimony in its support. 

 Would he not be surprised if I should say to 

 him, I have examined a considerable number 

 of bones, all of which were said to be dis- 

 eased and attended by the ordinary symp- 

 toms, but I have not tbund any satisfactory 

 evidence of decay in any of them; yet, I have 

 found no reason to change my opinion? 

 Would he not tell me that opinions should be 

 founded upon knowledge, and that knowledge 

 be derived from facts? "Subscriber" ^as 

 attempted an analogy between things totally 

 dissimilar — ordinary caries and hollow horn. 

 By confounding them together, he has com- 

 pletely broken the parallel. Once admit the 

 analogy, and we shall have as many hollow 

 disenses as there are bones in the skeleton, 

 to become hollow by caries. Ill order to 

 give him the full benefit of his argument, I 

 pledge mynelf to renounce all scepticism in 

 the case, whenever he sliall produce the 

 thousandth part of the evidence for the exist- 

 ence of hollow horn, by which the occurrence 

 of ordinary bony caries is supported. 



" Subscriber" says, "there is no doubt, but 

 the pith of the horn wastes away sooner after 



the death of the animal, than any other bone. 

 On examination, 1 have found a number of 

 piths (in the horn house I suppose,) decayed 

 and rotten toward the point, and the bone and 

 the root of the horn perfectly sound. This 

 fact favors the opinion, that the piih is more 

 frequently the seat of disease than any other 

 bone." The fact, as stated, is true of the 

 pith, but does not apply to the bone of the 

 pith. The pith is composed of a spongy bone, 

 covered and lined with a highly vascular pe- 

 riosteum, and having its interstices filled with 

 blood vessels. Towards the tip, the bone is 

 more porous, consequently, there is a larger 

 proportion of animal matter in that part to 

 putrify, as " Subscriber" has justly remarked. 

 It was this animal matter — not the bone 

 which he found rotten. The inference he 

 draws, " that the pith is more frequently the 

 seat of disease than any other bone," requires 

 the evidence of facts for its support. If he 

 will make the examination, he will find that 

 the end of the pith in the horns of sheep, is 

 almost entirely made up of animal matter — 

 much more so than in cattle — and hence, he 

 would suppose, much more liable to decay ; — 

 yet, I have not understood hollow horn to be 

 more common among sheep than cattle. 



One more remark, and I am done. " Sub- 

 scriber" thinks that the " general term (hol- 

 low horn,) given by ignorant people, to all 

 the diseases of which cattle die in the spring 

 season, is, perhaps, as near the truth as that 

 excess of information which pretends to know 

 that such a disease has no existence in na- 

 ture." I pleed guilty of the "/oZ/^/ of pre- 

 tending to a knowledge of things," and am 

 justly charged with that " excess of infor- 

 mation,''^ which denies the existence of hol- 

 low horn. I know it has an existence in the 

 minds of what he is pleased to call " igno- 

 rant people," but having diligently sought 

 for it in nature, and in the history of observed 

 facts, without success, I must be permitted to 

 doubt and to deny its existence, until evi- 

 dence shall be brought to sustain it. " Sub- 

 scriber" volunteered to advocate this opinion 

 of " ignorant people," and to prop their tot- 

 tering edifice, but its ruins have tumbled upon 

 his own head. He has not proved the exist- 

 ence of hollow horn. He has not detected 

 the folly of my pretending to a knowledge of 

 things. He has not shown that it is "excess 

 of information" for me to pretend to know 

 more than " ignorant people." I hope that 

 he will, therefore, "disrobe himself of all his 

 own opinions and pretensions to knowledge," 

 respecting hollow horn, "and turn himself 

 out, stark naked, in quest of fresh notions," 

 more consistent with observation, experience 

 and facts. 



Since my essays on horns were written, 

 the editor of the Farmers' Cabinet bas kind- 



