258 
PROF. P. J. CADIOT. 
suborbital foramen, there was a tumor well defined, as big as a 
fist, evenly hard, except in the centre, where the skin was ulcer¬ 
ated and where was seen protruding a large fleshy granulation. 
The skin was adherent to the tissues underneath. No oedema 
all around. The exploration of the diseased region was painful 
and the animal resisted it. From the left nostrils ran a clotted, 
foetid liquid, increasing by exercise. The glands of the maxil¬ 
lary space were hypertrophied, slightly indurated, painful, 
movable on the deep tissues and not adherent to the skin. A 
foetid odor came out of the mouth. When this cavity was opened, 
on the left side the gingival mucous membrane was destroyed, 
covered with granulations, swollen alongside both alveolar 
borders. The second, third and fifth molars were loose and im¬ 
planted in soft tissue. On each side of the dental arch there 
were two fissures, gutters like, where putrified food accum¬ 
ulated. The fourth molar had dropped from the mouth and 
was replaced by a fungus granulation. The animal was thrown 
and chloroformed for more minute examination. By trephining 
in three places over the face, on the centre of the tumor, a large 
opening was made, which exposed the destruction of the greatest 
part of the maxillary bone and the roots of the molars, whose 
alveoli had lost their bony walls. The second and fourth molars 
were removed with the hands. 
The diagnosis was simple. It was a tumor which had de¬ 
stroyed most of the superior maxillary bone, filled the sinuses 
and perforated the palatine arch. Microscopical examination 
showed that it was an epithelioma. The animal was destroyed. 
The post-mortem showed that no secondary tumor existed in 
the viscera. The superior maxillary was not entirely destroyed. 
The first molar was the only one that remained attached. A 
slight traction on the fifth and sixth permitted of their removal. 
The neoplasm projected but little on the palatine arch, yet was 
destroyed in most of its left half, from its posterior border to the 
first molar. 
You will observe that these three cases are very similar. The 
differences between them is only as to the extent and seat of the 
