'The emergence of specialized “small animal” veterinary practice during the interwar years has long been acknowledged by historians of the profession. Most frequently, this development has been characterized as a response by (invariably male) veterinarians to the threat posed to their businesses by a technology-driven decline in the horse trade - an assumption that Andrew Gardiner has shown to be problematic as far as the interwar period is concerned. [note: 'Andrew Gardiner, “The Dangerous Women of Animal Welfare: How British Veterinary Medicine Went to the Dogs,” Social History of Medicine 27, no. 3 (August 2014): 466–87, at 467–68.']' (300)

'Though the Canine Nurses’ Institute survived the First World War, it did not leave asignificant institutional legacy. The market for urban dog care among the upper middle classes underwent considerable change in the postwar era, and the institute’s role was in many ways usurped by the growth of a comparatively professionalized (and seemingly more combative) institution, the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals of the Poor, founded by the philanthropic and entrepreneurial MariaDickin. [note: 'Gardiner, “The Dangerous Women of Animal Welfare,” 470–77. On the status of dogs during the First World War, see Philip Howell, “The Dog Fancy at War: Breeds, Breeding, and Britishness, 1914–1918,” Society and Animals 21, no. 6 (January 2013): 546–67.']' (304)