PERIPLANTAR SHOEING. 
715 
the sole and frog are not so much, if at all, implicated as the 
laminae, and the correctness of this theory is of course denied. 
In justice to the eminent veterinary authorities who have 
studied and described the disease, I must decline the honour 
and responsibility of being the author of the theory ; it is not 
mine. I believe it, however, to be in the main correct, as in 
the immense majority of cases these parts are not nearly so 
much, if they are at all affected, neither do they suffer at all 
to the same degree in the disorganization consequent on 
inflammation. Hence the somewhat old designation of 
“ laminitis.” A knowledge of the structure and functions 
of the foot would explain, what experience proves, why 
allowing the sole and frog to share in supporting weight 
should not only assist in relieving, and even preventing 
congestion and its serious consequences, but also why the 
laminae should be so largely involved when the foot is con¬ 
gested or inflamed. 
At page 645 of the Veterinarian I am accused of making 
two opposite statements in reference to a case of disease, and 
am asked how I can reconcile them. Very easily. After the 
so-called special shoes have been applied to a pony suffering 
from chronic laminitis (and whose pathological history while 
so affected should be fully reported), the groom informs his 
master—an honourable,” which of course adds weight to 
the testimony—in two or three days that the animal is cured. 
Master writes to veterinary surgeon that such is his groom’s 
report; and, ergo, it must be a very satisfactory case to said 
veterinary surgeon, albeit not a very reliable one to others. 
Chronic laminitis, in these days when miracles are scarce 
(though it must be confessed that the treatment of laminitis 
is fast merging into the miraculous), is, I should fancy, rarely 
“ cured ” in tliree days. 
Thus far, then, I have endeavoured to answer the charges 
brought against me, on the score of professional incompetency, 
garbling statements, making others which are incorrect, &c. 
&c., in the matter of horse-shoes—periplantar, non-vibratile, 
and special—and their application. My chief reason, how¬ 
ever, for attempting this unwelcome task was the desire to 
protest against a statement which not only involved myself, 
but a foreign colleague, who is not in this country to write 
on his own behalf. I allude to periplantar shoeing, which to 
satisfy the craving to be always right, was pronounced a 
failure without adducing the slightest evidence besides my 
own and that of another veterinary surgeon (who had, it 
appears, tried it on three horses, and who, during the trial, 
I understood was well pleased with it). As I think this 
