270 MR. MAYHEW ON USE AND ABUSE OF BELLADONNA. 
REPLY TO MR, MAYHEW' S PAPER “ ON THE USE 
AND ABUSE OF BELLADONNA." 
By William Smith, Student of Veterinary Medicine, Edinb. 
Veterinary College. 
Mr. Edward Mayhew, M.R.C.V.S., London, con- 
tributes to the April number of the ‘ Veterinarian a paper 
‘On the Use and Abuse of Belladonna.' To allow this 
article to remain unnoticed, even for a single month, might 
be misconstrued as a tacit approval on the part’ of the 
profession of the confused and untenable views which it 
enunciates ; and, as a humiliating admission of a serious 
charge of “ prejudice” against the use of belladonna, and of 
incapacity to distinguish pneumonia from other disorders. 
Mr. Mayhew commences by expressing his conviction that 
“true pneumonia is, in the present age, but seldom wit- 
nessed.” (p. 189). This conviction is assuredly borne out by 
all observation and experience ; but from the manner in which 
it is stated, we are led to infer that true pneumonia was a 
common disease in previous ages. This is very far from 
being correct. True pneumonia (by which we understand 
inflammation of the capillary walls of the air-cells of the lungs) 
has ever been, and still is, of rare occurrence. Along with a 
variable amount of inflammation of the pleura, it constitutes, 
however, that common affection which is usually styled 
pneumonia, and has at all times been regarded as the most 
simple and curable of internal inflammations. 
Mr. Mayhew entertains the idea that “pneumonia was not 
formerly one half so fatal as it is at the immediate moment.” 
(p. 189). This statement, although entirely gratuitous, 
unsupported by adequate evidence, and at variance with 
general observation, he forthwith endeavours to explain on 
the audacious assumption that the present race of practi- 
tioners are less competent than their predecessors to distin- 
guish ordinary pneumonia from diseases which simulate it. 
He concludes in the following terms: “Influenza, I take it 
for granted, is, in a number of cases, mistaken for pneumonia.” 
This charge is surely inapplicable to the profession at large. 
Such a mistake may occur with a few old-fashioned practi- 
tioners, who neglect the use of modern aids to diagnosis. 
With ordinary care, there is, however, no difficulty in distin- 
guishing the two diseases just mentioned. Pneumonia con- 
sists in acute inflammation of the lobular structure of the 
lungs, and usually, also, of the lower parts of the pleura, and 
