526 
EDITORIAL. 
promulgated by Professor Gothier, of the Lyons Veterinary 
School some seventy-five years ago. 
Having encountered cases in our practice of what we have 
considered true hemorrhoids, according to the definitions given 
by Hr. B., and having knowledge otherwise of reports of simi¬ 
lar cases, we cannot avoid a feeling of surprise at the conclusions 
which have been reached by the author of the article in question, 
and we, therefore, proposed to ourselves an exploration of the 
regions of veterinary lore, with the design of discovering if pos¬ 
sible, something in modern veterinary literature besides the 
archaic opinions of Professor Gothier. But the result of our 
exploratory labors has been a sad disappointment, and little, if 
any benefit has accrued to veterinary science therefrom. We do 
learn, however, that Professors Law, Kobertson, Messrs. Blaine, 
Hill, Youatt, Bouley, Roll, Helwart, Cruzel and many others 
seem all to appreciate the fact of the extreme rarity of hemor¬ 
rhoids in animals. It is indeed a fact that in the works of a 
portion of these writers the disease is not even mentioned, 
although it may be admitted that Hertwig, Mayliew, Williams, 
Percival, Steel, Armitage, Zundel, Pradal and Beugnot do men¬ 
tion or describe an affection similar to hemorrhoids. But it is still 
a fact that the positive recognition for which we were hunting, 
failed in all our reserches to materialize. 
Shall we, therefore, agree with Dr. Bodenhamer’s conclusion, 
and admit that there is no place among the pathological troubles 
of our domestic animals for hemorrhoids, and that they are quite 
free from the “ inflamed or relaxed condition of the hemorrhoidal 
veins and capillaries of the inferior (or for our quadrupedal 
patients), posterior portion of the rectum from some existing 
cause” 
This is a question to the solution of which we think veterina¬ 
rians ought to feel it to be their duty to contribute. 
The subject is not without importance, first because of its 
general bearing upon the study of comparative pathology, and 
again, because of the strength of the proof which the fact might, 
as Dr. B. remarks, contribute to the argument in favor of the 
Darwinian theory of the origin of man. 
