The naturalist and the trained animal keeper are, in our opinion, better judges of a wild animal’s condition than is the veterinarian, unless he be at the same time a zoologist and have long experience with a menagerie. My own observation of dogs and horses leads me to think that more acumen is needed to interpret the actions of wild animals since they seem to have greater natural reserve, and of course in regard to them there are many more variables since we see fewer specimens of each species than we know familiarly among domestic varieties. The principal objects for observation are, as in veterinary medicine, the eyes, the hair and skin, the mucous surfaces, the droppings, the condition of the abdomen, the appetite and the desire for water. Physical examination is limited to tractable beasts and those which can be caught and handled without danger to the personnel or unusual fright and damage to themselves. In the interpretations of physical signs in tractable animals, such as many ungulates and some monkeys, the experience of the trained veterinarian is of the greatest value, but this fails amongst carnivores and birds. It might be said that anesthetics could be used for a thorough examination, but this would be undesirable for a seriously sick animal and it is, in our experience, none too safe a procedure although often perfectly practicable. Animals do not like to be molested much as they may seem to enjoy attention, and when it is possible it is our practice to avoid handling them.