PARTS OF ANIMALS, III. ii. 



reason in both cases is the same. There are, how- 

 ever, some animals that have one horn only, e.g. 

 the Oryx (whose hoof is cloven) and the " Indian 

 Ass " (whose hoof is solid). These creatures have 

 their horn in the middle of the head : this is the 

 nearest approximation to letting each side have its 

 own horn, because the middle is common equally to 

 both extremes. Now it is quite reasonable that the 

 one horn should go with the solid hoof rather than 

 with the cloven hoof, because hoof is identical in 

 nature with horn, and we should expect to find 

 divided hoofs and divided horns together in the same 

 animal. Again, division of the hoof is really due to 

 deficiency of material, so it is reasonable that as 

 Nature has used more material in the hoofs of the 

 solid-hoofed animals, she has taken something away 

 from the upper parts and made one horn only. 



Again, Nature acted aright in placing the horns 

 on the head. Momus in Aesop's fable " is quite 

 \\Tong when he finds fault with the bull for having 

 his horns on the head, which is the weakest part of 

 all, instead of on the shoulders, which, he says, 

 would have enabled them to deliver the strongest 

 possible blow. Such a criticism shows Momus 's 

 lack of perspicacity. If the horns had been placed 

 on the shoulders, as indeed on any other part of the 

 body, they would have been a dead weight, and 

 would have been no assistance but rather a hindrance 

 to many of the animal's activities. And besides, 

 strength of stroke is not the only point to be con- 

 sidered : width of range is equally important. 

 Where could the horns have been placed to secure 

 this ? It would have been impossible to have them 

 on the feet ; knees with horns on them would have 



221 



