420 
LAMENESS IN HORSES. 
the limits of that substance, and, when it does not, no tumour or visible 
splint of course results. Neither is it, perhaps, in every instance that 
the periosteum, even where tumour forms, participates in the inflam- 
matory action; consequently, has no pain produced in it — not being 
sensible in the natural state — no lameness arising out of its tensity 
or augmentation of substance. Hence, as is ordinarily the case, 
splints exist without giving rise to lameness. What commonly, 
indeed, happens with horses having splints we believe to be this : — 
That the increased vascular action does not amount to inflamma- 
tion, but is simply what may be termed super-alimentary or 
hypertrophic ; and that under its influence the tumour of splint 
rises so gradually that the periosteal membrane, under the same 
sort of influence, grows as the tumour grows, and so accommodates 
itself to the increased superficies it has to spread over without 
suffering any tension. And by the absence of inflammation and ten- 
sion do we account for the generality of horses having splints 
suffering no manner of apparent inconvenience from them. 
Splints belong to the fore, Spavins to the hind Legs. — 
The late Professor Coleman used, in his “ Lectures,” to lay it 
down as a principle, that “ spavin and splint were in nature the 
same the only difference between them being that one was 
“ situated in the hind , the other in the fore leg.” And scientific 
investigation of the subject will shew that, in so far as regards one 
description of spavin — the low spavin — the Professor was correct 
in his position. It can matter nothing in a pathological view 
whether an exostosis exist between bones — correlative in site, 
structure, and use — in the hind or in the fore limb. What is purely 
a splint in one case amounts to no more in the other, by which 
we mean, so long as the exostosis is confined to the splint and 
cannon bones. But, should the tumour be found placed against 
or having any connexion with the knee or the hock, inasmuch as 
those joints, though correspondent in respect to situation, differ 
materially one from the other both in structure and function, such 
an exostosis would have probably a different effect in the one joint 
from what it would in the other, and might on that account have a 
different importance attached to it, and a different name given to 
it. Therefore, we have no right to find fault with calling a “ bony 
knot” upon or close under the hock a spavin instead of a splint; 
but surely we have a right to urge objection against the appella- 
tion of splint being still continued, when the “ knot,” instead of 
being in the ordinary site of splint, is upon or close under the knee. 
Should we not be justified in giving to such a tumour some other 
name 1 Mr. Cherry has done so ; he has given ‘it the name of 
“ spavin in the knee.” Solleysell* was well acquainted with this 
* Op. cit. 
