"REVIEW. 
141 
which he has never until now had an opportunity of verifying. 
The first case of the lameness before us which occurred to him 
was conceived to be a fracture of the tibia , a misconception 
not confined to him alone. He found, however, circumstances 
attending the case which did not exactly tally with this 
diagnosis, and therefore gave it up for rupture of muscle, or 
ligament, or tendon, or aponeurosis. M. Delafond, however, 
whom M. Bouley consulted, demonstrated that the lesion was 
most probably in the flexor metatarsi, since division of that 
muscle, in any part of its course, produced a lameness closely 
simulating the one in question. 
Still there was wanting — what could not readily be obtained 
— post-mortem proof, to clear the matter up. Accident at length 
furnished this proof. A mare standing in the Alfort College 
was cast, in order to unsole her ; a very painful (and we might 
add cruel, and we submit uncalled for) operation, which at the 
time of the wrenching of the sole being performed, gave rise — as 
well such an operation might — to a violent struggle. When 
risen, in being led back to her stable, it was found that she went 
extremely lame in the off hind leg, and that her lameness pre- 
sented all the characters of rupture of the flexor metatarsi. 
Three weeks afterwards the mare was destroyed, and on 
dissection it was discovered that the tendon of this very muscle 
was broken completely through, nearly opposite to the groove 
in the head of the tibia. 
To this sketch we subjoin the following observations of the 
author of this alleged discovery. 
I have heard it said that this lameness has been long known. 
I am aware that it has. Solleysel himself has described it ; 
but without making any mention of its seat. Others have ob- 
served it as well. In spite of all this, however, it is a certain 
fact, that this lameness has been mistaken, up to the present 
time, both in its nature and seat; so much so, that the diagnostic 
errors to which this has given rise have been productive of 
the worst of consequences. In the face of facts such as these, 
it has appeared to me of some interest to call attention afresh 
to the subject. 
I believe that it is M. Rossignol who has made the remark, 
that although the diagnosis of this lameness was of value as 
regarded prognosis, it mattered little as far as concerned 
