6oo THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



each of these three distinct dogs is made up of separate elements, and 

 can not possibly be regarded as being located in a single cell or fiber 

 alone. Dog auditory is made up of the audible consonantal sound D, 

 the audible vowel-sound ati or 6 (unhappily we have no universally 

 recognized phonetic system), and the other audible consonantal sound 

 G hard ; in that precise order of sequence and no other. Dog pro- 

 nounceable is made up of an effort of breath against tongue and teeth, 

 producing the soft dental sound D, followed by an unimpeded vocal- 

 ized breath, producing the audible vowel-sound au or o, and closed by 

 a stoppage of the tongue against the roof of the mouth, producing the 

 soft palatal G. Finally, dog legible, in print at least, is composed of 

 the separate symbols D and O and G, or d and o and g, or d and o and 

 g. Yet all these distinct and unlike dogs would be unhesitatingly 

 classed by most people under the head of language, and be located 

 by phrenologists, with their clumsy lumping glibness, in the imaginary 

 " bump " thereto assigned, or by more modern physiologists (whose ex- 

 cellent scientific work I should be the last to undervalue) in the par- 

 ticular convolution of the left hemisphere found to be diseased in 

 many cases of " atactic aphasia," or loss of speech. 



How infinitely more complex and varied, then, is the idea of dog, 

 for which all these heard, spoken, written, or printed dogs are but so 

 many rough and incomplete symbols ! For the idea of dog comprises 

 the head thereof, and the tail, the four legs, the eyes, the mouth, the 

 nose, the neck, the body, the toes, the hair, the bark, the bite, the 

 canine teeth that inflict it, and all the other known and remembered 

 peculiarities of perfect doghood as ideally realizable. If we are to 

 assign peradventure a special tract in the brain to the concept dog, it 

 must be clear at once that that tract will be itself a very large and 

 much subdivided region. For it must include all the separate visible 

 attributes of the dog in general ; and also it must contain as sub-spe- 

 cies in subordination to it every kind of known dog, not only those 

 already enumerated, but also the Eskimau dog, the Pomeranian, the 

 French poodle, the turnspit, the Australian dingo, the Cuban blood- 

 hound, the Gordon setter, and so forth, through every other form of 

 dog the particular possessor of that individual brain has ever seen, cog- 

 nized, or heard of. Is it not clear that, on the hypothesis of such defi- 

 nite and distinct localization, dog-tract alone ought to monopolize a 

 region about one sixth as big every way as our whole assignable pro- 

 vision of brain-surface ? 



Moreover, about this point we seem to be getting ourselves into a 

 sad muddle. For we have next to remember our own private dog, 

 Grip, let us call him, or if you prefer it. Prince or Ponto. Now, I 

 suppose, his name, viewed as a name, will be localized in the language 

 department of our particular brain, and will there be arranged under 

 the general heading of proper names, division dog-names. But there 

 must be some intimate cross-connection between the cell or cells rep- 



