104. 
REVIEWS. 
Dr. Thomas Richmoiul; one veterinary surgeon, Mr. Andrew 
Smith ; and three ])ractical agiiciilturists, Messrs. Thomas 
Stock, Frederick William Stone, and David Christie. With 
such a combination it is fair to say the subject must have 
been investigated in all its aspects. 
In presenting their report the committee explain the 
method of inquiry which they followed before stating the 
conclusion at which they arrived. 
The results of the investigation are thus stated : 
^‘the origin of the disease, and the various theories 
RESPECTING IT. 
There is now no difference of opinion as to the fact that 
contamination is due, in some way, to contact with Texas 
cattle. The disease is one peculiar to Texas, the Gulf States, 
and to Florida and Georgia. When it appears in other lati¬ 
tudes, it is conveyed there by cattle from those States, 
brought to the north at a season of the year favorable to its 
exhibition. It is not a disease of the north, and never exists 
there, except in the circumstances named. The most promi¬ 
nent theory as to its cause is that it is the result of feeding 
on astringent plants, specially the ^ Live Oak.’* It is 
said that in Southern Texas, where that tree grows abun¬ 
dantly, the cattle partake largely of it, and that its use causes 
the disease. It is alleged that a disease similar in its cha¬ 
racter, called ^ darn,’ prevails in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, 
which, it is believed, is caused by the cattle feeding on oak 
shoots and other astringent plants. Still ‘ darn ’ is not the 
analogue of Spanish or Texas fever. It differs from it in 
some essential particulars. ‘ Darn ’ is not so speedily fiital 
after its elimination, and tympanites is common to the latter. 
jNIoreover, it has never been known that cattle affected by 
^ Darn,’ when removed to other parts of the country, affected 
others. This is a very important difference. Even were 
there not satisfactory evidence of the erroneous character of 
the Live Oak ’ theory, it is difficult to see that tlieir par¬ 
taking even largely of live oak shoots could cause the disease 
in cattle. The essential principle of live oak is tannin^ an 
astringent and tonic, which, unless taken in very large quan¬ 
tities, would not have a morbid influence. Besides, of the 
rough material, even of the bark, the essential principle forms 
proportionately but a small part. And can it be supposed 
that to any appreciable extent cattle in Texas would prefer to 
live on oak shoots to the rich and early verdure so charac¬ 
teristic of Texan pastures ? That there may be accidental 
'* Gamgee. 
