CORRESPONDENCE. 
127 
out at least granting me a chance of correcting them in their 
error. A statement in your much esteemed paper may, perhaps, 
remove the mist which lias clouded the faculties of the editor of 
the Turf, Tield and Farm , and prompt him to try to undo at 
least a portion of the injury he may have done me here by a 
public statement of the true facts. I want nothing but justice. 
Sincerely, 
M. J. Treacy, M.R.C.Y.S., 
London , England . 
INFLUENZA OR CELLULITIS? 
To the Editor of the Review : 
Having noticed a discussion between Messrs. Myers and Hoi 
combe, regarding the late epizooty, I beg to record my experience 
with it in the Review. 
I have seen neither cellulitis nor anything resembling it occur 
as a symptom, complication or sequel in any of the horses or 
mules that have come under my notice in the Third Cavalry, or in 
the Quartermaster’s Depot, Fort D. A. Russell, Wyoming. But 
I have seen what I have been taught to consider as well-marked 
oedema, the result of passive congestion of blood in the capillaries 
of the limbs, etc. 
I had two horses die of the disease commonly termed “ pink¬ 
eye,” in which I recognized the disease known in the profession 
as epizootic influenza, minus any complications whatever, and I 
will relate the history, symptoms and post-mortem appearances of 
the cases. 
Toward the end of December last T was called to see three 
horses in Troop G, Third Cavalry, said to be suffering from 
“ pink-eye.” I visited them and found two of them in a very 
low condition, they having partaken of no solid food for a long 
time, having been on a trip and just returned. 
I asked the men who had ridden them how long they had 
been sick; they told me one horse (belonging to a non-commis¬ 
sioned officer of the troop) had been sick about eight days, 
another one five days ? and tiie third one but one or two days* 
