160 STUDY OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
the ground. Here, then, is a case where we must 
even distrust the evidence of our senses, if we 
are tempted to apply that evidence too hastily to 
the generalisation of facts. The habits of almost 
every animal, even in a state of nature, if attentively 
watched, might probably furnish instances, equally 
strong, of occasional aberrations from that economy 
which, to them, is natural and habitual. Such 
incidental facts must be viewed under the same 
light as we regard monstrosities, or Lusus Nature ; 
and the only legitimate inference we can draw 
from them is the futility of all absolute characters. 
(99.) But if prejudices may be imbibed from 
viewing animals in a state of nature, still more may 
they be generated by looking to animals in confine- 
ment, and drawing inferences from the habits or in- 
stinct they then exhibit. A curious instance of this 
has just been published. With a view to ascertain. 
the natural food of the hedgehog, an individual was 
confined in company with a snake. As might 
naturally have been expected, the hedgehog, when 
pressed nearly to starvation, attacked and devoured 
the latter: the fact was undeniable, and the infer- 
ence deduced was, that nature intended this qua- 
druped to prevent our being overrun with serpents. 
Against this conclusion it has been urged, that the 
one is only abroad during the day, while the other 
feeds only by night; so that by no ordinary chance 
would they ever meet. (NV. H. Mag.) Did the 
hedgehog, like the mole, habitually burrow in search 
of its prey, we might then, indeed, conjecture that 
it dug out serpents from their holes during night: 
but this supposition, again, is not borne out by 
