ON HOCK LAMENESS. 
(jG8 
The horse was bled from the thigh, and, after the heat was re- 
moved by cooling treatment, the hock was blistered, and the 
lameness removed.” He again became lame, was treated, and 
got sound ; again fell lame, and was treated, and he died some 
months after. “ No disease could he found any where hut in the 
hock joint ; there was no spavin, and on separating a ll the bones 
of the hock, no disease could be discovered except in the upper 
articulation, where the tibia presented the appearance of being 
worn down, as it were, by friction about the centre of its middle 
protuberance — the cartilage being absorbed — the bone abraded — 
and the synovial membrane round it. red with inflammation. 
Having lent to some friend, who has forgotten to return them, 
and whom I have forgotten, the vols. for 1830 and 1831 of The 
Veterinarian, I cannot compare the description then given by 
Mr. Spooner with the preceding; but I think his description of that 
case was more like the description of the case in your July num- 
ber, than the words quoted from your October number convey. 
I shall take his own words as now quoted, and first beg to 
remark, that I am inclined to think a seat of lameness point- 
ed out by heat and tegumental swelling cannot be considered 
very “ obscure that in all cases where these symptoms are pre- 
sent, and arising from an injury in a joint, the injury must be 
severe, and theseatof it pretty obvious. If, however, I recollectright, 
Mr. Spooner does not mention any thing about tegumental swell- 
ing in his first paper in 1830, but, on the contrary, stating that 
“ no enlargement was any where perceived,” he, at the same time, 
said there was “ slight exostosis in the cuneiform bones, but not in- 
terfering with any joint , or likely to have occasioned any lame- 
ness” It is difficult for me to reconcile these statements of facts ; 
perhaps Mr, Spooner can. But, in the mean time, I may observe, 
that it is somewhat strange, after Mr. Spooner has told us that, 
on separating all the bones of the hock, no disease could be dis- 
covered, yet in the plate you have given we have the astragalus 
and os calcis united. Did Mr. Spooner then not examine the arti- 
culation formed by these bones? Is this the kind of examination 
upon which he asserts that no disease could be found any where 
else than on the articulating surfaces of the astragalus and tibia ? 
Mr. Spooner seems to have forgotten that the cuneiform bones, as 
quoted above (and, having now obtained a loan of the vol. for 
1830, 1 find I have correctly quoted), presented “slight exostosis.” 
What could have been the cause of these? Were these deposits 
not as indicative of inflammation, having previously existed in 
the cuneiform bones, as if ulceration had been found ? And if they 
prove this, what proof has Mr. Spooner given that that inflamma- 
tion did not exist at the time of the animal’s death ? W hy, none ; 
