ON FARCY AND GLANDERS. 
665 
Docs Mr. Vines doubt this? Well, Iheii, he shall have his own way, and 
“ g^ood and sound pathology can never co exist with wrong application of 
terms, or ambiguity of languageand as “ the Treatise on Glanders,” in 
the estimation of every one except the author, “ poor man !” does contain 
many “ wrong applications of terms,” and much “ambiguity of language,’^ 
it shall never be supposed to contain any “ sound pathology”—no, not the 
slightest particle. It is a sad conclusion ; but the author, “ poor man !” 
has said it, and against his dictum there can be no appieal. He has asserted 
that it would be “ downright nonsense” to suppose otherwise ; indeed, that 
“ it cannot for a moment be imagined to be possibleand so it must be ! 
“ Poor Man ! !” 
Mr. Vines now gives, at full length, a letter of Mr. Pritchard’s, of Wol¬ 
verhampton, commendatory of his treattnent of glanders, and which will be 
found in the fifth volume of our Journal, page 80; and also one from Mr. 
Brett, of Bletchingly, which will be found in page 322 of the same volume, 
and which was inserted at the desire of Mr. Vines. Mr. Pritchard’s letter, 
Mr. Vines informs us, was “ in rej)ly to some very improper insinuations 
which appeared in that journal a short time previously, from a person by 
the name of Karkeek.’’ A person by the name by Karkeek ! Beally, Mr. 
Vines, you should know better. Is every one who cannot subscribe to your 
creed to be subjected to abuse, direct or implied? 
To all the advantage which the approbation of these respectable gentle¬ 
men (Messrs. Pritchard and Brett) can procure, and, indeed, to llie ap¬ 
probation of the profession generally, if he has been fortunate enough to 
obtain it, I cheerfully leave Mr. Vines; aiid I break off the consideration 
of his review, although the misrepresentations and mis-statements m the after 
part of it are fully as frequent and as flagrant as those I have cited: it was 
necessary, however, that he should be taught to feel that he may not act the 
literary ruffian with impunity. 
Experiments on the Action of Emetic Tartar on 
Ruminants. 
By M. Fleurens. 
In a memoir read on a former occasion, before the Royal 
Academy of Sciences, M. Fleurens had established, by the aid of 
numerous experiments, that the act of vomiting in ruminants 
differs essentially from that of other animals, and particularly in 
this, that, instead of .being, as in them, a rejection of indigested 
food, confused and in a mass, the matter returned is in regular 
and detached portions. This new memoir has for its object, to^ 
shew, that these two sorts of vomiting depend on the different 
construction of the stomachs ; and to arrive, by means of this, 
at an explanation of that fact, so singular, and long ago observed, 
that the animals which regurgitate the most easily do not vomit 
without extreme labour, or do not vomit at all. 
After having repeated the methods by which Daubenton, Gil¬ 
bert, and Huzard, endeavoured to‘^produce vomiting in sheep. 
