73 
ON WOOD-EVIL AND MOOR-ILL. 
By Mr. Mayer, Jun., Newcastle-under- Lyne. 
Mr. Cox having thought fit to make a few remarks, in your 
December number, in reply to myself and Mr. Surginson, on 
Wood-evil and Moor-ill, and illustrated his remarks by “ a prac- 
tical fact or two,” I feel called upon to make a few observations 
in support and in explanation of what, in a former number of 
The Veterinarian, I advanced. 
It will be recollected that Mr. Cox, in his first paper, stated 
that he had “ been on the look-out for some time for a distinc- 
tion” ei between wood-evil and moor-ill ; and because no proper 
one had been given by any writer, he offered a few remarks as to 
the causes, symptoms, &c.” In reply to his observations, I 
stated that I believed it to be one and the same disease ; and I 
rejoice that my statement was borne out by the experience of 
Mr. Surginson, who distinctly states, “ that whether the disease 
(that is wood-evil or moor-ill) occurs on the moor or in the 
meadow, or elsewhere, it is essentially the same in its symptoms 
and progress.” 
This testimony, supported as I shewed it to be by our modern 
writers on cattle medicine, Mr. Cox has not thought fit directly 
to dispute; but has (as will be shewn in another part of this let- 
ter) separated, and seeks for a distinction between these two dis- 
eases. Not satisfied with this, he has made it appear that I 
separated the two, in the following passage. “ Mr. Mayer, in 
stating the causes of what he calls moor-ill, enumerates, &c.” 
“ they, or some of them, may be concerned in the production of 
wood-evil or other complaints incident to cattle ; but they cannot 
always be adduced as the cause of moor-ill.” What did I call 
moor-ill ? Did I not call it one and the same disease as wood- 
evil ? And was not this testimony borne out in the next page 
by Mr. Surginson? And after enumerating various causes which 
Mr. Cox says I gave to moor-ill, did I not say, that cold, united 
with any of these agents, occasions the same disease (considering 
them one and the same) and “ produces that affection of the 
joints long known by the term moor-ill.” I distinctly deny 
that I in this or any other passage of my letter separated the two 
diseases, so as to give Mr. Cox any authority for saying I called 
it moor-ill. 
Mr. Cox has, however, led us to believe, from his further ob- 
servations, that there is a distinction between wood -evil and 
moor-ill. I will not enter, however, on this subject at present, 
but direct your attention, for a few moments, to a query or two 
VOL. x. l 
