OBSERVATIONS ON SOUNDNESS. 
693 
horse’s foot; also called thrush. Good gives the following 
explanation of the word “Thrush;” <f An affection of the 
inflammatory and suppurating kind in the feet of the horse, 
and some other animals.” Oliphant writes as follows; 
“Thrush is the inflammation of the lower surface of the 
inner or sensible frog, and the secretion or throwing out of 
pus, is almost invariably accompanied by a slight degree of 
tenderness of the frog itself, or of the heel a little above it, 
and if neglected, leading to diminution of the substance of 
the frog, and separation of the horn from the parts beneath, 
and the production of fungus and canker, and ultimately a 
diseased state of the foot, destructive of the present, and 
dangerous to the future usefulness of the horse. A thrush is 
an -unsoundness” In page 430, Percivall’s ‘ Hippopathology/ 
article “Frush,” that author states, “ Everybody's horse has 
a frush, and yet nobody appears to be concerned about the 
matter. Horses, in general, seem to go as well with fl ushes 
as without them ; hence the reason of so little or no notice 
being taken of their presence; added to which, the circum¬ 
stance affords a pretty convincing proof that the judge in 
a court of law, uho, in former times, pronounced frush to 
constitute unsoundness, erred most egregiously in his fiat 
justitia” Again, in same page, “A Frush is not to be 
accounted unsoundness unless it produce lameness, which it 
rarely does.Were a frush to be viewed as un¬ 
soundness, there would be found perhaps more unsound than 
sound horses in the country; in fact, according to such a 
notion, hardly anybody would possess a sound horse/’ 
I think, then, we may make use of the term frush in reference 
to the diseased state of the horse’s frog which has heretofore 
in vulgar parlance borne the name of thrush. One good and 
valid reason for employing the term frush will be found in 
the fact of the ignorant not being misled to the belief that 
the bird of that name, thrush, could in any way be understood 
to be alluded to as the source from whence the term was 
derived. 
The opinions advanced in Mr. Percivall’s book are those I 
am anxious to guard against. He distinctly states that frush 
must not be regarded as unsoundness., 
Such an opinion as this becomes very dangerous, and is 
likely to lead to disputes. If one disease is unsoundness, 
and another must not be considered so; how are we, or the 
public to reconcile such opinions ? Indeed, it is difficult 
under any circumstances to know how to receive them. It 
is just this sort of thing which causes the opinions of the 
members of our profession to be questioned. There are, I 
