278 
REMARKS ON MR. MAYHEW’S CASE OF 
MELANOSIS. 
% William Mavor, Jun., M.R.C.V.S . 
Sir 40, New Bond-street, April 13th, 1849. 
Observing in The Veterinarian for this month an article 
written by Mr. May hew, upon Melanosis, wherein he mis-states 
and questions my opinion, I beg to make a few remarks in reply, 
and to set that gentleman right. But before entering further upon 
the case, I think it necessary to mention that I have had an interview 
with Mr. Buckle, the proprietor of the animal and subject of dis¬ 
pute, and I have the authority of this gentleman to state, that my 
opinion, as subjoined, was distinctly conveyed to him; and, more¬ 
over, he positively assures me that he in no way whatever com¬ 
municated such opinion, or any other, to Mr. Mayhew. It is, there¬ 
fore, scarcely necessary for me to mention, that the information 
upon which the last-named gentleman has thought proper to make 
assertions so positive and so undeniably erroneous as those l will 
hereafter refer to, has been derived from a very questionable source; 
and Mr. Mayhew must feel that he would have acted wisely had 
he exercised more caution by ascertaining the correctness of the 
information he received before publicly impugning another’s judg¬ 
ment, and arrogating to himself a superiority of perception which 
he has not only failed to establish, but has, in consequence thereof, 
reflected upon him the disappointment, from its being shewn to the 
public that his vaunted superiority of judgment in this case is only 
self-accorded. 
I will now refer to Mr. Mayhew’s mis-statements relative to my 
opinion, and then give it in its real form. 
In the first place, Mr. Mayhew asserts, that “ I regarded the en¬ 
largement as a simple tumour; that it might prove melanotic, did not 
enter into my idea of possibility.” No such thing; for I must inform 
him that, when the horse was submitted for my examination, 7 
unhesitatingly, after due observation , affirmed that the tumour was 
melanotic in its character. 
In the second place, Mr. Mayhew remarks, that “ I pronounced 
the removal by the knife an impossibility.” I must again inform 
him, that in this respect also he is in error, as I did not con¬ 
sider that its removal ivas impracticable , but that , in the event of 
an operation being performed, serious consequences woidd , in all 
probability, ensue, and endanger the life of the animal; and, there¬ 
fore, the more politic course icould be to leave it entirely to itself. 
