SOCIETY MEETINGS. 
287 
- - -- 
iiams was singularly incorrect in his selection of passages to prove that his 
share in the paper was in that portion which criticised his work. It would be 
1 to deny Professor Williams any satisfaction he might derive from the state- 
t that he had used the microscope before either Dr. Woodhead or himself 
’ born, but such assertions were not argument. 
i The President said that in spite of all that had passed he thought the work of 
J Woodhead and Professor M‘Fadzeau deserved the thanks of the Association. 
f undertaken the duty of preparing the paper at his own request. He 
asked them to do so, because he had long felt that if their profession was 
3 intimately associated with medical men in their daily work they would not 
he remarkable statement so often made by members of the medical profes- 
with reference to the diseases of animals as affecting men. He hoped to see 
' lay when the professions would work more together. (Applause). 
On the motion of Mr. Campbell, Kirkcudbright, seconded by Mr. Cameron, 
h Berwick, a vote of thanks was awarded to the writers of the paper, and 
Woodhead acknowledged the compliment. 
LAMENESS IN HORSES. 
Mr. William Hunting, London, submitted a paper on “ Lameness in Horses,” 
I lich lie described the symptoms of the various phases of lameness, and made 
al reference to the difficulty of diagnoscing. He impressed upon them the 
of hasty diagnosis, and urged that a correct diagnosis was more likely to be 
ed at by a cool, logical exercise of the brain than by the hasty generalization 
! tuition. The direct causes of lameness were pain, mechanical interference, 
I defective innervation, and the symptoms were local tangible changes and 
ttions in the position and action of the limb. Position and action were valu- 
?uides to a correct diagnosis, which was not intuitive, and was not a guess, 
dr. T. H. Simcocks, Drogheda, supported the views of the essayist, and said 
Tterinary profession would be thought more of if they were less hasty in 
ng an opinion. Mr. Henry Hunter, Newcastle, thought Mr. Hunting had 
•rated the power of diagnoscing cases by the gait of the animal. There were 
cases in which that could be done, although there were more in which it 
3 be difficult to arrive at a proper conclusion without careful observation. 
PGrigor, Bedlington, mentioned that twenty-five years ago there was an old 
an in the city who used to buy lame horses and bring them under Professor 
ee’s treatment, and they were made wonderfully useful. Mr. Walter, Hal- 
| brought under the notice of the meeting a form of lameness which was 
mic, and which the President attributed to imperfect washing. Mr. Pottie, 
ley, referred to the great diversity of opinion that existed in the profession 
:ard to lameness, as was shown in the evidence given in legal cases, and said 
fid be of great benefit if they could come to some agreement on the matter, 
j ssor W. O. Williams, New Veterinary College, Edinburgh, recommended 
; tioners to make notes of the length of the stride made by animals going 
which would greatly assist their diagnosis. Principal Williams agreed 
the essayist that a correct diagnosis was only to be obtained by a careful 
of anatomy, and the action of the various muscles concerned in locomotion. 
I liscussion was continued by Mr. Cameron, North Berwick; Mr. Campbell, 
udbright; Mr. Greayes, Manchester; Mr. Sjmpsop, Maidenhead; Mr. 
