S h 0 d i i m a r l C c t ~ ~ I h . t ~ ~ * ‘ i s of incmsiig economic importance m terms of both disease in dogs and public health in humans via dogs, then the call to inrrease the vaccine vdency may be morejustified. It may be an appmpriate time for a clear indication of the

impomwe of this disease to be stated so that a considered reqxmse for the cantrol ofthis disease in dogs canbecome more effective.

Reference Dickeron D and Love DN (1993) AM Vet J 70389

Care and Handllng of Australlan hlatlve Anlmals: Emergency Care and Captlve Management, edited by Suzanne J Hand, Surrey Beatty & Sons in Association with Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, 1990, pp 2 10, $39.60, lSBN 09 49 324 299

1255 Moss Vale Road, HELEN GEORGE Beaumont, New South Wales 2577

I refer to T Stephens’ review of Care and Handling of Austra- lian Native Animals in the October 1993 issue of the Aust Vet J 70:398.

T Stephens has criticised a number of aspects of my papers, and I would like to make the following comments.

Stephens’ comment that &e work is “somewhat out of date” is unfair. This argument could apply to all the contributions to the volume, given that the book is the product of a symposium held in 1986. I find Stephens’ statement, that there is hardly any reference to the professional role of veterinarians, puzzling. In the kangaroo notes alone there are 14 references stressing the veterinary role.

On the subject of references for haematology and biochemistry, it states quite clearly that details on how the data compiled were available and that this material was courtesy of Rich. I supplied references when I submitted my paper. It was an editorial deci- sion not to include this information in the book. It is interesting to note that in other papers there were no listed references.

Regarding the use of drugs and the role of the veterinarh, I find it difficult to understand Stephens’ criticism. The whole tenor of my paper suggests accurate diagnosis by veterinarians and the prescription of drugs by them. My paper as originally submitted, acknowledged a veterinarian for his help with drug dose rates. It was an editorial decision not to include this acknowledgment in the book. My flying fox paper was edited in the same way as the kangaroo

chapter. I acknowledged in the submitted paper those people who had helped me. The data presented, the techniques outlined for hand-rearing, and the observations made, were my own work.

Wombaroo Food Products, BRIANGRICH PO Box 151, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064

I refa to the review by T Stephens of Care and Handling of Alcstralian Native Animals in the Aurt Vet J, 1993,70398.

Stephens criticises Helen George for lack of references in her papers and yet refers to “a recent scientific paper” in the review. To which recent scientific paper does Stephens refer? If this ”recent scientific paper” is Milk Substitutes for Marsupials by M Messer and DM Walker, published in Urban Wildlge, Pro- ceedings 204, Post Graduate C d t t e e in Veterinary Science, (1992). then Stephens’conclupim that Wombaroomilkreplacers

ara “laas than adoquate” is incarrect. The authors of this paper do not state ar suggest that Wombaroo is less than adequate.

Wombaroo milk replacers are regularly reviewed in the light of new research and, to date, several changes have been made to the original 1983 formulations.

crookwell Veterinary Clinic, JLCHURCHILL Colyer Street, RC CHURCHILL Crookwell, New South Wales 2583

We wish to comment on the review in the October 1993 issue of the Australian Veterinary Journal by T S t e p h a of the book Care and Handling of Australian Native Animals: Emergency Care and Captive Management. Compared with the reviewer’s delight withthepublicationas a whole, we findtheovert criticism of the papers presented by Helen George rather puzzling. Perhaps T Stephens should read again, more carefully and critically, the articles prepared by this author.

Throughout Helen George’s text there are frequent references to veterinarians and their importance in diagnosing and treating disease. Ms George also acknowledges the work of Dr Henry Collins from theDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, University of Sydney.

A number of other authors made constant reference to specific antibiotics and dose rates throughout their sections on disease, yet were not chastised by the reviewer.

T Stephens makes a very generalised comment when dismiss- ing Wombaroo products based on “a recent scientific paper”. Which paper? Exactly what does “less than adequate” mean? There are favourable references to Wombaroo products in papers by Ray Williams (page 71) and by CS Hopkins (page 183).

Our veterinary practice has been using Wombaroo products for the past 7 years to constantly maintain and care for a wide variety of injured and orphaned native mammals, birds and reptiles. These products have also beenused extensively and successfully by many of our clients.

The lack of references by Ms George was also criticised, but several other papers in this compilation have no references listed whatsoever.

Haberfield Veterinary Hospital 55 Ramsay Street Habextield, New South Wales 2045

TANYA L STEPHENS

My criticism of the contribution by Helen George to the volume entitled Care andHandling of Australian Native Animals, edited by Suzanne Hand, which I reviewed in the October issue of Aurt Vet J 70:398 has drawn comment that I consider needs to be read in the light of this criticism.

The book was intended as a useful reference for veterinarians and others involved in the area. As such it consists of papers most of which are presented in excellent scientific mode with refer- ences clearly idenWied for most material. These are in contrast to the paper on rearing kangaroos by Helen George.

Let it be very clear this was in no way a criticism of Ms George herself, whose long involvement in the area is well documented and respected It was a criticism of the paper, which simply does not meet the standards one expects of such papers. The criticism goes to the points that the material has been presented in a quasi-scie&ic mode, which on first glance might seem to be well-based s c i d i c fact, but the lack of references does not permit verification of this, that certain data are incorrect and that

60 Auslralh Veterfnary Journal Vol. 71, No. 2. pebruary 1994