32 
ON HOCK LAMENESS. 
Mr. D. may be disposed to gather from the engraving, yet the 
hock it represents certainly presented no ossijic connexion be¬ 
tween the os calcis and astragalus when sent to Mr. Youatt, which, 
indeed, he well knows. Mr. Dick, in his third page, observes :— 
In the account of that case (alluding to the one before spoken 
of in 1830) no mention is made of the middle protuberance of 
the tibia having the appearance of being worn down, nor are 
these words used in his July communication; neither does the 
plate you have given convey any such idea; and I am therefore 
persuaded such appearances were not presented in the prepara¬ 
tion.^^ Now, then, Messrs. Readers of The Veterinauian, I 
must for a few moments claim your marked attention, and we 
shall see on what grounds Mr. Dick permits himself to be so 
persuaded. In the first place I may observe, that the circum¬ 
stance of my not having the 3d vol. by me at the time will suf¬ 
ficiently account for the same words not being used on separate 
occasions to describe a similar appearance, and no one will deny 
that the same appearance can be accurately represented in dif¬ 
ferent language ; but, on reference to my paper of 1830, I find 
that these were my expressions:—“ On examining the hock, 
considerable ulceration was observed on the ridge of the tibia be¬ 
fore-mentioned ; the cartilage on its summit was quite removed., 
and the bone exposed, with a red line bordering the ulcerated sur¬ 
face.” Now, oes not this description convey pretty much the 
same idea as that of the expression, the appearance of being worn 
down ? 
Again, with reference to the hock represented by the engraving, 
Mr. D. is persuaded no appearance of being worn down was pre¬ 
sented by the tibia in the preparation, because the plate conveys 
no such idea. Now this is somewhat like Tenteiden steeple 
being the cause of Goodwin Sands ; for Mr. D. will not believe 
that certain appearances are represented on the tibia, because the 
plate does not convey it, when the plate itself does not represent 
the tibia at all. But what are the facts of this case ? In my July 
communication I write, The ulceration on the former bone (the 
tibia) was at least three-fourths of an inch in length, and nearly 
half an inch in width, and the cartilage and periosteum were 
entirely removed on this abraded spot.” What, too, says Mr. 
Youatt’s more excellent and exact description:—“On the cor¬ 
responding central projection of the articular surface of the head 
of the tibia there was a deeper stain, and a considerably deeper 
depression. The surface was rough, and the edges were irre¬ 
gular; the cartilage was abraded, and the fibrous structure of 
the bone appeared beneath.” Is it necessary to ask, after these 
descriptions, whether the expression, the appearance of being 
