mr. Wilson’s reply to mr. hill. 
819 
have met with one or more cases of “ tetanus ” arising from 
amputation of a portion of the tail, commonly called “ dock- 
ing” 
I need not enlarge on the fact that in dividing the coccy- 
geal bones you also divide, at the same time, nervous trunks 
which may be regarded in the light of a continuation of the 
spinal cord, which operation is sometimes followed by the 
death of the animal. 
I think “ docking” is a very painful, cruel, and unneces- 
sary operation ; but I do not think these remarks will apply 
to the operation of firing for “ lampas.” Further comments 
are useless, and therefore I will leave to the profession at 
large to judge for themselves. 
“ Lampas” is an affection generally found in young horses, 
and is usually discovered by the animal being “ off his feed.” 
On examination we find the gum of the upper jaw inflamed 
and protruding beyond the level of the incisors. 
In performing the operation I do not use an iron with a 
curve (which is the one in common use), and burn out a 
portion of the gum, which is usually done, but merely apply 
a flat piece of iron, at a white heat, to the part until I have 
reduced it to a level with the teeth. The operation, which, 
if the animal is properly secured, will not occupy a minute, 
is then complete, and nothing more is required. Confine the 
animal for the first day to cold bran mashes, and in an in- 
credible short space of time the horse will assume his natural 
method of feeding, and be all right again. 
I remember a case where the lancet had been used, and 
the palatine artery divided, thereby bringing discredit on the 
operator, and causing some little trouble to stop the bleeding. 
I presume, and am glad to find, that Mr. Hill agrees with 
me in the majority of my statements, as the only ones that he 
finds fault with are deep-firing and using the hot iron for 
lampas. These objections I have endeavoured to answer in 
as short a space as possible in your valuable Journal. 
When I penned my previous remarks, they were intended 
principally for the perusal of the younger members of the 
profession, of whom I find Mr. Hill is one. Perhaps, when 
he has been a few more years in practice, some of his present 
- ideas may, to a certain extent, undergo a change. 
Theory is all very well, when it is united with successful 
practice ; but such is not always the case ; and then it is 
not only impolitic, but even sometimes dangerous to carry 
out. 
When I was a pupil at the Royal Veterinary College, I 
have had to sit hour after hour, and day after day, listening 
