PROGRESS OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ART. 221 
published in this number of the Journal by my friend Mr. 
Hunting, but far be it from us to believe that such invariably 
occurs. Velpeau’s eloquence at the Academy of Medicine, 
and the inconsistency of microscopical observers — the jeers of 
the so-called practical section of the medical world, and the 
mistaken notions of a few enthusiastic defenders of the 
microscope — do not in the least detract from the impor- 
tance of the use of that invaluable instrument. It is not 
the first time that the eloquence of a Demosthenes has 
been used for a wrong purpose, and that warm advocates, in 
the heat of contention, have fallen preys to intemperance, and 
had to hand over justly merited laurels. Whatever M. 
Delafond, of the Alfort school, may say of the analogy 
between cancer and primordial cells and of the insufficiency of 
magnifying lenses, it is certainly not yet that veterinarians 
can speak with sufficient confidence on such questions. This 
I utter, anxious as I may be to claim for veterinarians that 
position they ought to hold as members of a liberal profession 
and as men of science. Cancer is one of those subjects that 
has most inefficiently been studied by veterinary pathologists ; 
and if we can already say something respecting it, it is not 
sufficient to warrant a veterinarian to overthrow the whole 
doctrine of specific cells, which may, as I am inclined to 
believe, be reasonably modified, though certainly not discarded, 
inasmuch as it is based on facts adequately numerous and 
weighty, and sustained by men whose caution and mental 
worth are sufficient guarantees for the accuracy of obser- 
vation and the more than ordinary soundness of their views. 
It must not be forgotten, or as Dr. Carpenter expresses him- 
self, “ It cannot be too strongly or too constantly kept in 
view, that the value of the results of microscopic inquiry will 
depend far mere upon the sagacity, perseverance, and 
accuracy of the observer, than upon the elaborateness of his 
instrument.” Man is indeed likely to fail in observation, 
but if the microscope enlarges our sphere of research it con- 
fers on us advantages that cannot be questioned ; and it is to its 
use and not to its depreciation that every right-thinking man 
of science should turn his attention. 
Saint-Cyr would have conferred some benefit on us if, 
instead of dogmatically and unintelligibly styling the specimen 
he described fungoid degeneration , he had faithfully studied and 
published its microscopical and physical character, for every 
one to judge for himself. As it is, he has left us absolutely 
in the dark, though there be not entire absence of evi- 
dence presumptive that his was a case of carcinoma in- 
volving the tissues surrounding the point whence it first 
xxix. 29 
