TBANSCENDENTAL ANATOMY. 361 



notoriously distinct. In this predicament stood the lion and 

 tiger, panther and leopard, horse, zebra, ass, dog, wolf, fox, 

 jackall, pig, ox, man. The theory of variety, to a certain extent 

 permanent, was next brought to bear on these difficult ques- 

 tions; the influence of domesticity was also invoked, and 

 even the fruitfulness of hybrid races was asserted ; so that 

 Natural History fast retrograded towards the silly hypothesis 

 ascribed to Aristotle, who is supposed to have conjectured 

 that the vast variety of animal forms with which Africa 

 abounds, is due to the arid nature of the country, and its 

 paucity of rivers and springs, thus bringing together animals 

 of many species and genera ; hence the varied character of 

 Afric's Fauna. 



" The inadequacy of anatomy to distinguish species in every 

 case was fully admitted by Cuvier himself. I also admit this 

 practically, but with this reservation, that the minute anatomy 

 of even the osteology of every species differs in a certain 

 degree, however slight, from every other ; but such minute 

 differences are not of much importance in the establishment 

 of important principles, nor can they always be depended on. 

 The nasal bones of the horse and ass differ in form from each 

 other, more perhaps than any part of their respective os- 

 teology ; but how insignificant is this difference, in a natural- 

 history point of view, when compared with those external 

 characters which mark the zebra, the horse, the ass, and 

 quagga ! The same remarks apply to the lion and tiger, in 

 respect of these very bones, the nasal, and their relations to 

 the superior maxillary bones ; to the white ox of Scotland, 

 and to the common domestic ox. The nasal bones, the skele- 

 ton of the head, the character of the teeth, do not differ more 

 regularly or constantly, nor to the same extent, in the horse, 

 zebra, and ass, than they do in the races of man. The skeleton 

 of the head of the negro and Bosjesman differ much more 

 widely from the white races of man than those of the horse 

 and lion differ from the corresponding structures in the tiger 

 and zebra. I do not, therefore, admit, to the full extent, that 

 anatomical characters ever fail to discriminate species ; but I 

 freely admit their occasional inadequacy to characterize or to 

 lead to the determination of species in a practical sense. On 

 the other hand, the facility with which this may be done, by 

 a consideration of the external characters, is known to all the 

 world. Science admits of no exaggeration ; Anatomy has 

 done much for Natural History ; much for Philosophy j still 



