ON HOCK LAMENESS. 
67 3 
In looking back to Mr. Spooner’s letter in July, I find he 
alludes to the discussion on spavin which had taken place in 
the Veterinary Association, and especially to the answer given to 
a question of Mr. Holmes by Mr. Cheetham ; and he is sur- 
prised no allusion was made to his views of the seat of the dis- 
ease. Perhaps I can tell him why Mr. Cheetham, at least, would 
not allude to it as the seat of disease. Some time after he became 
a pupil of mine, with an ardour for investigation for which he 
always distinguished himself, he had been examining some 
hocks, and thought he had made a discovery, and brought a 
specimen to me of the astragalus and tibia, presenting the ap- 
pearance in question, and quite as much as shewn in your plate. I 
explained it to him, and he was satisfied it was not in a diseased 
condition. I have no doubt he will recollect the circumstance ; 
and this, I think, will explain why he did not consider it as 
disease ; and, for aught I know, similar circumstances may have 
led others to overlook it: — so much for the neglect of the discovery. 
Mr. Spooner is a sturdy opponent : not content with having 
so valorously combatted all I had said against his discovery, he 
pulls up fresh courage, and attacks me in his turn : he says, 
tl Mr. Dick seems to dispute the theory of pathologists, that, 
when a bone exposed to great friction presents a polished ap- 
pearance, such appearance is occasioned by the deposition of a 
peculiar secretion to resist this friction.” Now, I shall not at- 
tempt to reply to his arguments, because, as he has never seen 
any thing of the kind in the hock, otherwise he would have 
stated it, I think it better to allow him time to reconsider it, 
taking the liberty, however, of saying, that in a conversation I 
lately had the honour of having with a gentleman whose authority 
on such subjects Mr. Spooner will think as good as mine, name- 
ly, Sir Astley Cooper, Bart., that gentleman stated, as his 
opinion, that it was merely the mechanical effect of friction, and 
not a secretion. I shall, however, be ready to discuss this at 
length, if Mr. Spooner desires it, in another paper ; but I think 
this letter, even if one was necessary, has already exceeded due 
bounds ; and I am afraid that, although it were further extended, 
Mr. Spooner would still be inclined to state, that his “ opinion 
remains entirely unaltered by Mr. Dick’s animadversions,” and 
any thing further I might say would therefore be superfluous. 
Before concluding, however, I must say a few w T ords to Mr. 
Pritchard : he says he can most positively assure me, that neither 
he nor Mr. Spooner are in error in regarding those sulci or pits 
as lesions of the cartilage, but that I err ; that, “ however fre- 
quent these are seen, they are true morbid lesions .” I simply 
ask, where is their proof ? I stated in my last, that these sulci 
