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 Naturce ; 

 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. (N. H. Mag.) Did the 

 hedgehog, like the mole, habitually burrow in search 

 of its prey, Ave might then, indeed, conjecture that 

 it dug out serpents from their holes during night : 

 but this supposition, again, is not borne out by 



