In 1824, five years after Sewell's introduction, we find it practised on the Continent by Girard. We gather, however, from the writings of Percival and Liautard, that both in this country and on the Continent the operation was for several years largely in the stage of experiment. Unsuitable subjects were operated on; the work afterwards given to the animal improperly adjusted to his altered condition; and the bad after-results of the operation almost ignored by some, and greatly exaggerated by others. In fact, some long time elapsed before veterinary surgeons allotted to the operation that measure of credit which the results following it warranted. _The Object of the Operation_ is to render the foot insensitive to pain, and to give to an otherwise incurably lame animal a further period of usefulness. After the operation, as time goes on, this object may become defeated by the reunion of the divided ends of the nerve. In that case, neurectomy must necessarily be performed again. _The Operation_.--Two forms of neurectomy are recognised--the high operation and the low. The low operation deals with the posterior digital branch of the plantar nerve, and the high operation with the plantar itself. It is the latter operation with which we shall deal first. In our opinion it is that most likely to be followed by satisfactory results. The area supplied by the posterior digital is mainly the posterior portion of the digit. Thus, unless the cause of the lameness is diagnosed with certainty to be situated somewhere in the posterior region of the foot, section of the posterior digital alone will not give total insensibility to pain. Added to that, we may remember this: Below the point at which the digitals branch off from the plantar there is always more likelihood of the part we are attempting to render insensible being supplied by another and adventitious branch, or a branch that, as regards its direction, is abnormally distributed. As a last consideration, we may say that the higher operation is the easier to perform. Percival, in his works on lameness, has some very sage remarks to make by way of a preliminary, and we cannot do better than quote them here. He says: 'To command success in neurectomy three considerations demand attention: '1. The subject must be fit and proper; in particular, the disease for which neurectomy is performed should be suitable in kind, seat, stage, etc. '2. The operation must be skilfully and effectually performed. '3. The use that is made of the patient afterwards should not exceed what his altered condition appears to have fitted him for. 'The veterinarian who is guided by considerations such as those will find that he has restored to work horses who would otherwise have been utterly useless. A plain and safe argument wherewith to meet the objections to neurectomy is simply to ask the question what the animal is worth, or to what useful purpose he can be put, that happens to be the subject of such an operation.