M. DUPUY ON THE OPERATION OF NEUROTOMY. 53 
it, many veterinarians rejected it without examination; but others, 
struck by its advantages, have sought to compare it with the 
known laws of physiology, and give to its results a rational ex¬ 
plication. 
The nerve operation, as it is called by Mr. Goodwin, is de¬ 
scribed in his work in a very imperfect manner. He scarcely in¬ 
dicates the diseases which it is intended to alleviate ; and does 
not even describe the manner of performing the operation : he 
only says, that the operation consists in dividing the nerve on 
both the inside and on the outside of the leg, whether it be 
above or below the fetlock. After having recited many instances 
of success, the author mentions two mares whose hoofs fell ofl 
ufter the operation ; but he insists on the rarity of such accidents. 
Knowing this work, we cannot easily reject neurotomy as an 
unjustifiable operation; nor can we admit it as infallible ; and the 
loss of the hoofs, related by Mr. Goodwin, is a circumstance 
which ought to excite the attention of all veterinarians. To re¬ 
move the doubts which he has raised, it is necessary, first, that 
we should determine what influence is exercised by the plantar 
nerves on the parts situated beneath the place where the division 
is made. In default of direct experience, two questions present 
themselves—whether the plantar nerves preside over the sensibi¬ 
lity and nutrition of the parts on which they ramify, or whether 
they give sensibility to those parts while the nutrition depends 
on the nervous threads which accompany and surround the ar¬ 
teries. 
Anatomy is a science of demonstration, where it is permitted 
to doubt that which we do not see ; and since, till now, no one 
has seen the nervous threads accompanying the arteries of the 
limbs, we doubt their existence, b ar from believing them un¬ 
concerned with nutrition, we think that the nerves composing 
the axilliary and lumbar plexuses, preside equally over the sen¬ 
sibility and the nutritive and secretory actions of the parts on 
which they terminate ; and we apply this to the two examples of 
Mr. Goodwin, and ask, if the nutrition of the foot depends on the 
influence of any other nerves than the plantar, why should the 
division of these be followed by the loss of the hoof? Accord¬ 
ing to this hypothesis, such an accident could not have taken 
place; and the consequences of neurotomy ought to be bounded 
by the loss of the sensibility of the foot. This question, I know, may 
thus bo answered by my opponents : Why, when other opera¬ 
tions have been performed in the same manner, have the animals 
been cured, and the hoofs have not fallen ofl* ? The objection is 
specious : there was the same disease; the operation was per- 
lormed in the same manner; all the circumstances were the 
