1792* on animal nutritton. 16$^ 



no means be iuferred from thence, that they derive 

 no nutriment from the stones they naturally pick up, 

 Wc know that man eats salads by choice, and no one 

 will doubt that he derives nutriment from them ; yet 

 I question not, that were men to be fed entirely up- 

 on salads, for any length of time, very fev/ could 

 live upon that food alone. Even frefh succulenC 

 fruits, which are invariably admitted to be highly 

 nutritious to man, when taken with other food, would, 

 if taken alone, prove fatal to many of the human spe- 

 cies : but there can be no doubt that the result o£ 

 the experiment would prove fatal to the whole human 

 race, fliould it be conducted in the same manner with 

 those of Spallanzani, on chickens. Were a philo- 

 sopher, upon difsecting a human stomach, and finding 

 in it some raw vegetables, to try if man could be fed 

 on grafs alone, or any other vegetables thit came to 

 hand, there can be no doubt but they would all die. 

 How false then would his conclusion be, if from 

 this experiment, he inferred that man could de- 

 rive no nutriment from raw vegetables ? How infi- 

 nitely more erroneous would it be to infer, that no 

 other animal could derive nutriment from raw vege- 

 tables of any sort ! 



Fowls, most afsu redly, not only swallow, but digest 

 small stones. Manufacturers who use dung of 

 poultry, never, I believe, find it mixed with stones ; 

 but as they require a daily supply of small stones, 

 these must of course, be digested in the stomach, and 

 be absorbed into the lacteals, from whence it is na- 

 tural to infer, they contribute in one way or other to 

 the health and nutrimept of the animal. 



