552 PHILOSOPHICAL THANSACTIONS. [aNNO 1700-1. 



being iiicliied with reason supplies the want of ni.niv things, which to otiier 

 animals may he needful. Man is nut covered with such (piantity of iiair or 

 feathers all (A-er his body, which to other animals serve for clothing ; but can 

 by his use of reason, supjjK himself witii clothes suitable to every climate, and 

 to the different seasons. He is not furnished with claws, hoofs, horns, &c. 

 which serve for arms to other animals, but can by the use of his reason, supply 

 himself with weapons andiolher instruments for different occasions, to much 

 better advantage. And in the present case, though raw fiesh be not proper, as 

 it is to some other animals, he can by preparative coctions, and other expedients, 

 render it more agreeable. Nor is he wholly destitute of denies canini ; but is 

 indeed furnished with all sorts of teeth, for all sorts of wholesome food. 



The Doctor takes the sheep, the goat, the swine, the ox, the horse, the ass, 

 the camel, the elephant, the hart, the hare, the rabbit, the mouse, &c. not to 

 be carnivorous ; but the dog, the wolf, the fox, the cat, the lion, the leopard, 

 the tiger, &c. to be naturally carnivorous; and which of all these have or have 

 not the colon, or what other distinctive mark may be observed between these 

 different tribes of animals, he thinks may deserve a serious consideration. 



Ahstvacl of Dr. Tijsoiis Ansmer to the foregoing Letter of Dr. Jf^allis, concern- 

 ino Mans feediug on Flesh. Dated Jan. id, 1 JOG. N° 'iCig, p. 774. 



The argument you propose rrom the conformation of the intestines, u hy man 

 should not be carnivorous, seems far more rational than that which Gassendus 

 urges, from the structure of the teeth. Though it must be owned there is no- 

 thing he has omitted that could have been said to favour it. 



But before more particularly considering your hypothesis, it may be remarked, 

 that had man been designed by nature not to have been a carnivorous animal, 

 no doubt there woidd have been observed in sorr.e part of the world, men who 

 did not at all feed upon fiesh. But since no history furnishes us with such an 

 instance, 1 cannot but think that what has been done universally by the whole 

 species, must be natural to them. What the Pythagoreans did in abstaining 

 from llesh, was upon the noticni of a inetempsychosis, or transmigration of 

 souls, a mistake in their philosophy, and not a law of nature. And though in 

 some countries men feed more freely on flesh, in others more spariiiglv, this is 

 owing to their own choice, from the advantage they find thereby. Nature 

 having given mankind reason, he can or ought to chuse what food he finds most 

 agreeable to hiin in the c-limate he occupies ; and is not determined to any one 

 sort, but has liberty to use all. And it is as probable that the antediluvian world 

 had so likewise. Wherefore I wholly acquiesce in your determination of this 

 point, and am fully satisfied with the reasons you give for it. 



