ON HOCK LAMENESS. 
G7L 
and, as he has described it, and that too without ulceration ; and he 
might also then have concluded, that what I have stated on this 
point is not quite so contradictory as he seems to think, but that 
“ there is nothing more common than to observe the effects of 
friction on the articulating surfaces of these bones,” and “ quite 
different from what Mr. Spooner points out.” I refer to my last 
letter, where I say it is always found in bog spavin , and that a 
knowledge of it is by no means new, at least here ; and also, that 
you may have an opportunity of shewing the real effects of fric- 
tion by another plate, I refer you to a specimen which my friend 
Mr. Liston, the distinguished Surgeon of the North London Hos- 
pital, got from me a good many years ago, which, I have no 
doubt, he still has in his museum. By it will be seen that much 
greater friction may take place, and that without ulceration, than 
Mr. Spooner seems to believe. It will also shew, that although 
neither veterinary writers nor lecturers have pointed it out to 
him, and although they may have known nothing about it in his 
end of the island, yet that it has both been long known and 
pointed out here. That some lecturers have pointed it out, and even 
enlarged upon it at considerable length, my pupils can also testify. 
If Mr. Spooner possessed the acuteness of understanding I was 
willing to allow, I think he would have understood what I meant 
by the symptoms which would indicate the existence of the 
occurrence of friction prior to death. I stated that it would be found 
more or less in all cases of bog spavin : surely then Mr. Spooner 
does not require me to tell him what are the symptoms ; he can- 
not but know them, whether he knows the pathology or not. Are 
the symptoms of bog spavin “ obscure ?” No ; they are obvious ; 
there is enlargement , which I think is the reverse of “no enlarge - 
merit:” and, as Mr. Spooner says with regard to bog spavin, every 
one knows, at least every veterinary surgeon, if he knows any thing 
at all, that not one in twenty occasions lameness, which I think 
is pretty nearly the reverse of “ obscure hock lameness.” Even 
according to Mr. Spooner’s own shewing, without going farther, 
perhaps he will now understand what I meant by the symptoms of 
the existence of friction in the hock joint (or, if he chooses, any 
joint) being quite the reverse from those of his cases of “obscure 
hock lameness.” But as “ only one out of twenty” of my cases of 
friction are attended with lameness, and as all Mr. Spooner’s 
cases of “ obscure hock lameness” arise from friction, there must 
be, perhaps, a greater degree of susceptibility in the part he says 
is affected. It is, perhaps, a little ticklish. But " suppose” Mr. 
Spooner were to turn round and ask me, Well, where do you say 
the seat of “ obscure hock lameness” is ? I would repeat what 
1 said in my last, that before 1 concluded that an obscure 
