130 DOMESTIC BABBITS : Chap. IV. 



remained nearly the same as in the wild rabbit ; but in weight, the 

 bones of the hind legs apparently have not increased in due pro- 

 portion with the front legs. The weight of the whole body in the 

 large rabbits examined by me was from twice to twice and a half as 

 great as that of the wild rabbit ; and the weight of the bones of the 

 front and hind limbs taken together (excluding the feet, on account 

 of the difficulty of cleaning so many small bones) has increased in 

 the large lop-eared rabbits in nearly the same proportion; con- 

 sequently in due proportion to the weight of body which they have 

 to support. If we take the length of the body as the standard of 

 comparison, the limbs of the large rabbits have not increased in 

 length in due proportion by one inch and a half. Again, if we take 

 as the standard of comparison the length of the skull, which, as we 

 have before seen, has not increased in length in due proportion to 

 the length of body, the limbs will be found to be, proportionally 

 with those of the wild rabbit, from half to three-quarters of an inch 

 too short. Hence, whatever standard of comparison be taken, the 

 limb-bones of the large lop-eared rabbits have not increased in 

 length, though they have in weight, in full proportion to the other 

 parts of the frame ; and this, I presume, may be accounted for by 

 the inactive life which during many generations they have spent. 

 Nor has the scapula increased in length in due proportion to the 

 increased length of the body. 



The capacity of the osseous case of the brain is a more interesting 

 point, to which I was led to attend by finding, as previously stated, 

 that with all domesticated rabbits the length of the skull relatively 

 to its breadth has greatly increased in comparison with that of the 

 wild rabbits. If we had possessed a large number of domesticated 

 rabbits of nearly the same size with the wild rabbits, it would have 

 been a simple task to have measured and compared the capacities 

 of their skulls. But this is not the case : almost all the domestic 

 breeds have larger bodies than wild rabbits, and the lop-eared kinds 

 are more than double their weight. As a small animal has to exert 

 its senses, intellect, and instincts equally with a large animal, we 

 ought not by any means to expect an animal twice or thrice as large 

 as another to have a brain of double or treble the size. 27 Now, 

 after weighing the bodies of four wild rabbits, and of four large but 

 not fattened lop-eared rabbits, I find that on an average the wild 

 are to the lop-eared in weight as 1 to 2 - 17 ; in average length of 

 body as 1 to 1 - 41 ; whilst in capacity of skull they are as 1 to 1"15. 

 Hence we see that the capacity of the skull, and consequently the 

 size of the brain, has increased but little, relatively to the increased 

 size of the body ; and this fact explains the narrowness of the skull 

 relatively to its length in all domestic rabbits. 



27 See Prof. Owen's remarks on this 1862: with respect to Birds, see 



subject in his paper on the 'Zoological ' Proc. Zoolog. Soc.,' Jan. 11th, 1848, 



Significance of the Brain, &c, of Man, p. 8. 

 &c.,' road before Brit. Association, 



