COLICS IN HORSES. 
15 
by such inquiries to develop, as in a majority of cases we are able 
to do, a possible and correct diagnosis. 
Celebrated authors, amongst whom are Fendrier and Legrain, 
have recommended that the term colic be dismissed from the nos¬ 
ological list ; Zundel and others apply the name only to pains ex¬ 
clusively gastro-intestinal. Zundel calls the other abdominal pains 
pseudo-colics, and defines them further by connecting the name with 
that of the organ affected. Hence the hepatic, nephretic, cystic, uter¬ 
ine colics, etc. Yerheyen and Legrain consider as colics all pain¬ 
ful manifestations located in the gastro-intestinal canal only, 
making no allusion to the lesions which produce them. Roll 
wished to confine the term exclusively to diseases not affected by 
material lesions, as well as to those produced by intestinal obstruc¬ 
tions, alterations of structure and modifications of form. Nie- 
meyer is srill more restrictive, and with reason, reducing the list 
of true colics, which he views as simple entralgia, not involving 
any material alterations: if following this entralgia, congestion, 
inflammation or other alterations of form or structure take place, 
the colic loses its nominal title and is named in the pathological 
nomenclature according to its seat and nature. Reynal accepts 
the word in its wider meaning, and applies it to all pains located 
, the abdomen and manifested by a series of uniform symptoms, 
entirely ignoring all question of the causes in which they originate. 
To resume: There are two opinions among scientists. 
On one side are those who advocate the dismissal of the 
term colic from the nosographical nomenclature, or who would 
at least reduce more and more its signification and appli¬ 
cation. The other party would accept it as a symptomatic desig¬ 
nation belonging to all abdominal pains. The first party consider 
abdominal pains as so many different morbid conditions; the latter 
would elevate the common symptom to the position of a true 
independent disease. 
Our own view is that while retaining the use of the term, it 
would be proper to limit its use exclusively to those cases where 
the diagnosis is absolutely impossible. The practitioner then 
must endeavor by minute investigation to recognize and define 
the true nature of the affection he has to treat. In his exainina- 
