466 
Abortion in Coxes. 
farm, have not caused the remaining cows to be affected, although 
thej have not been separated from them. So that in this instance 
the circumstance of No. 9's visit to No. 11 may fairly be 
regarded as a coincidence rather than a cause of the subsequent 
outbreak. 
Farms 15 and 16 may be taken together, as both had 
purchased animals from Mr. U. (Farm 26), on whose farms 
abortions were supposed to be rife. 
On April 4th, 1884, Mr. I. (Farm 15) bought from Mr. U. 
three barren heifers, a newly calved cow, and a barren cow. 
We must confine our attention to the latter animal, as it was to 
her Mr. I. attributed the blame of conveying infection to his 
herd. In June (six weeks at least, and may be ten), after the 
importation of this cow, one of his cows that was in the field 
with her aborted; between that time and April 1885 five or 
six more did so. With the exception of two, all aborted whilst 
out. These two were in different sheds, and each having in- 
calvers in close contact with them, which went their full time. 
In April 1885, Mr. P. N. (Farm 16) purchased from Mr. U. 
three laying-off calvers ; they were turned out with a home-bred 
in-calver, and in May one of the purchased animals aborted. 
The remaining three were immediately sent to a distant field, 
and in June his own-bred animal aborted, the other two pur- 
chased animals going their full time. 
On taking Mr. U.'s case (Farm 26) he informed me that the 
barren cow he sold to Mr. I. had calved a living full-time calf, 
some four months previous to his leaving the farm. If the infec- 
tion came from this farm (26) to Farm 15, it must have been 
conveyed by an unaffected animal, from one which had aborted 
in January or February. 
That it could be so conveyed as to cause an animal on a farm 
five miles distant to abort in June, I think highly improbable ; or 
that a heifer which left the farm fourteen months at least after 
the date of the last abortion (on which all cows had in the mean- 
time gone their full time) could have received infection previous 
to leaving so as to cause her to abort a month later on Farm 16 
also five miles distant, I think this too is highly improbable. 
When we remember that ewes had aborted on Farm 15 previous 
to the arrival of the suspected animal, and the irregular manner 
in which the animals were subsequently affected by this malady, 
it has more the appearance of being caused by some substance 
on the Farms 15 and 16 than by infection from Mr. U.'s farm. 
Thus the only three instances in which a possible source of 
infection could be suggested have, on investigation, proved to be 
extremely unlikely and improbable. 
2. "A cow having aborted, the in-calf animals in closest 
