NATURAL THEOLOGY. 75 



frequently pressing down the sac with the weight 

 of fish which it might now be made to contain. 



These, or of this kind, are the analogies relied 

 upon. Now, in the first place, the instances them- 

 selves are unauthenticated by testimony ; and in 

 theory, to say the least of them, open to great 

 objections. Who ever read of camels without 

 bunches, or with bunches less than those with 

 which they are at present usually formed? A 

 bunch, not unlike the camel's, is found between 

 the shoulders of the buffalo ; of the origin of which 

 it is impossible to give the account here given. In 

 the second example : Why should the application 

 of water, which appears to promote and thicken 

 the growth of feathers upon the bodies and breasts 

 of geese, and swans, and other water-fowls, have 

 divested of this covering the thighs of cranes ? The 

 third instance, which appears to me as plausible 

 as any that can be produced, has this against it, 

 that it is a singularity restricted to the species ; 

 whereas, if it had its commencement in the cause 

 and manner which have been assigned, the like 

 conformation might be expected to take place in 

 other birds, which feed upon fish. How comes it 

 to pass, that the pelican alone was the inventress, 

 and her descendants the only inheritors, of this 

 curious resource V^ 



i'' The argument against the doctrine of appetencies may be 

 urged thus upon well-known facts. If the camel's bunch has arisen 

 from the animal, originally without any protuberance, having his 

 back affected by burthens imposed, it would follow that human 



