386 DISEASES OF THE RESPIRATORY ORGANS. 
for their elegance, some of them the professional man would 
hardly care to introduce in writing his certificate, but, un¬ 
fortunately, there is no remedy. A general expression, 
signifying unnatural noise in breathing, might be com¬ 
pounded from the classics, and would have the advantage of 
a sonorous victory over the vulgar words whose places it 
would usurp, but it is much to be feared that the public 
would not be satisfied with the innovation. To state to the 
expectant owner of the horse under examination that the 
respiration was cacophonous might excite in his mind grave 
apprehensions for his animal’s life, or even originate a doubt 
of the examiner’s sanity at the time, according to the mental 
calibre of the individual who sought the opinion, but it 
certainly would not suggest to him whether the horse was a 
whistler or roarer. 
With some members of the profession it has been a ques¬ 
tion whether the employment of one term—for example, 
“ roaring”—as the least objectionable of any, would not suffice 
to indicate an unhealthy sound, without further specification. 
Practically, this would not succeed, because every one pos¬ 
sessing an animal so affected is anxious to know the exact 
degree of the noise produced, whether whistling or roaring, 
and, above all, whether the horse “ grunts.” In spite, there¬ 
fore, of the technical objections to the use of the ordinary 
terms, it is impossible to substitute for them others which 
might better suit the educated taste; the words are appre¬ 
ciated by the people to whom, in the nature of things, they 
are most commonly addressed, and the attempt to banish 
them would only lead to hopeless confusion. 
Difference of opinion, so frequent among scientific men 
upon all questions, would seem hardly possible in a case of 
roaring or whistling, or any of the unnatural noises occa¬ 
sioned by certain conditions of the breathing organs; but as 
if to prove beyond all doubt the truth of the adage, “ doctors 
differ/'’ we meet with instances of competent judges arriving 
at different conclusions, not only respecting the nature of the 
noise, but as to its existence. When the sound is very slight, 
it is easy to understand how a very delicate ear may detect 
what may altogether escape a less sensitive one. Again, the 
noise may be audible only when the animal is moving at a 
certain rate; its cause may be temporary, and hence, although 
distinguishable at one time, it may not exist at all at another. 
A careful consideration of the peculiarities observed in par¬ 
ticular cases may suggest a reasonable explanation of the 
differences of opinion that undoubtedly exist, and, at the 
