Royal Society. ^rt 
tines; what the Dr. would propofe hereupon, is, wiietherit 
generally holds, or how far^ that animals, which arc not car- 
nivorous, have luch a Colon^ or fomewhat equivalent; and that 
thole which are carnivorous have it not ^ for if {o^ ic feems to 
be a great indicatioi^ that nature, which may be reafonably 
prefumed to adapt the inteftines to the difFerent forts of ali- 
ments that are to pafs thro' them, accordingly informs us, to 
what animals flefh is proper aliment, and to what it is not 5 
and that from thence we may judge more foiidly, than from 
the flru£lure of the teeth only, whether or nor flcfh was 
defign*d as proper food for man ? Now it is well known that 
in man, and poffibly, in the ape, monkey, baboon, ^c* 
fuch Colon IS very remarkable ; it is true, that the Ccecum in 
man is very fmall, and feems to be of little or no ufe ; but in 
a FcetuSy it is in proportion much larger than in adults, and it 
is poilible ; that our cuftomary change of diet, as we grow 
up, from what originally would be more natural, may occa- 
fion its ihrinking into this contracted pofture; but the Dr. 
adds alfo, that man's being endow'd Vv'ith reafon, fupplies the 
want of feveral things, which to other animals may' be need- 
ful; man is not covered with fuch quantity of hair or feathers 
all over his body, which toother animals ferve for cloathin^; but 
he can, by the ufe of his reafon, fupply himfelf with cloaths 
fuitable to every climate, and to the different feafons • he 
is not furniihed with claw?, hoofs, horn5, ^c. which ferve fot 
arms to other animals, but he can by the ufe of his reafon 
fupply himlelf with weapons, and other inftruments for dif- 
ferent occaiions, to much better advantage; and in the prcfent 
cafe, tho' raw flefh be not proper, as it is to fome other ani- 
mals, he can by preparative coitions, and other expedients 
render it more agreeable; nor is he wholly dellitute o{ 2)entes 
Caninl'^ but is indeed furnifhed with all Ibrts of teeth, for all 
forts of v/holefoms food : The Dr. takes the iheep, the 
goat, the fwme, the ox, the horfe, the afs, the camel, the ele- 
phant, the hart, the hare, the rabbit, the moufe, ^c. not to 
be carnivorous; but the dog, the wolf, the fox, the cat, the 
lion, the leopard, the tygcr, ^c, to be naturally carnivorous- 
which of all thefe have, or have not the Colou or what other 
dillinguifhing mark may be obfcrved between thefe different 
tribe of animals, the Dr. thinks may deferve a fefious con« 
fideration. 
The argument Dr. Wallis propofes from the conformation of 
the inteftines, why man (hould not be carniyorous, feems far 
more 
