ON HOCK LAMENESS. 
31 
and not true ulcerations; simply observing, however, at the 
same time, that their appearance is veiy similar to that found 
sometimes in the navicular joint, and there called ulceration. 
I must here, however, account for some trifling discrepancies 
that appear in my account of the same case ; one account being 
in the year 1830, the other in 1837. It unfortunately happened, 
that, when 1 wrote my last paper, I had not the volume for 1830 
in my possession, having lent it more than a twelvemonth since, 
and entirely forgotten to whom ; accident, however, at length en¬ 
abled me to find out, but it was only this day, December 12th, 
that it was returned into my possession. In consequence of this, 
in alluding to my first case, I wrote from memory, but with the 
hock before me ; and I am not aware of any important difference 
in the two descriptions. In that of 1830,1 have mentioned that, 
when the lameness first appeared, there was some heat of the 
skin, but no enlargement about the hock. In saying this, I did 
not allude to the slight swelling of the integuments that nearly 
always accompanies increased heat. In my description of the 
post-mortem examination, too, in my last account, I did not no¬ 
tice the very trifling appearance of exostosis on the bones of the 
hock which I had pointed out in my first case. This apparent 
discrepancy clearly shews the fact that this exostosis was so very 
trivial, as to escape entirely my notice on looking at the hock 
when I wrote my last paper; but, yet, that my examination of the 
hock in 1830 was so minute, as to discover, and point out, what 
any common observer would now on inspection of the joint fail 
in discovering: it did not in the slightest degree interfere with 
the joint, or connect any two bones together, and, as I before 
stated, could not possibly have produced any lameness. I should 
perhaps have added, with reference to this case, that all external 
inflammation totally subsided, but that (as I thought would 
have been readily inferred) the mare continued lame up to the 
time of her death. 
Mr. Dick, in his second page, observes, that it is somewhat 
strange, after Mr. Spooner has told us that, on separating «//the 
bones of the hock, no disease could be discovered; yet, in the 
plate you (the Editor) have given, we have the os calcis and 
astragalus united.^’ This remark of Mr. Dick exhibits, at least, 
a very great oversight on his part, for the commonest attention 
to the subject would, at once, discover that my remark alludes 
to a case in 1830, whilst the plate referred to one in 1837, as is 
clearly mentioned by Mr. Youatt. This inaccuracy, however, 
although calculated to mislead our readers, and one that we 
should hardly have expected to have been committed by Mr. 
Dick, is yet of no further consequence, because, whatever ideas 
