VOL. XXII.] PHILOSOPHICAL TKANSACTIONS. 553 



We shall therefore now, as you direct, consider it as a question in natural 

 philosophy ; whether from the observation of the structure of the parts in man, 

 we can find reason to think nature did or did not design him to be carnivorous. 

 For I am of Gassendus's opinion, that from the conformation of the parts of 

 the human body, we may form conjectures concerning their mere natural func- 

 tions ; for all the knowledge we have of the uses of the parts in animal bodies, 

 is by observing nature's wonderful contrivance in their formation, which most 

 wisely adapts them to the uses they are designed for. Not because they are 

 casually so and so formed, are they necessarily put to such and such uses ; but 

 therefore they are so contrived, that they may perform such offices in the econo- 

 my of animal bodies as nature intended them for. And there are several remark- 

 able instances I have given in my late treatise of the Homo Sylvestris, that suffici- 

 ently confutes such unphilosophical atheists. 



I come therefore now more closely to our business. Since you have so fairly 

 represented Gassendus's opinion and argument from the structure of the teeth, 

 why man should not be designed by nature to be carnivorous ; and have like- 

 wise sufficiently answered his reasons ; I shall wholly pass that over at present : 

 and shall only consider the observation you have made of the diiferent formation 

 of the intestines in carnivorous animals, from those that are to be met with in 

 such as do not feed upon flesh, but other food. And indeed this seems to me to 

 be of far greater weight, and to carry more strength in it than any thing I have 

 met with before ; and all the instances you give are very true. We shall there- 

 fore first of all observe, that the ductus alimentalis (for so I call the gula, the 

 stomach, and intestines, all which make but one continued canal or duct ;) this 

 ductus I say is properly the true characteristic of an animal, or proprium quarto 

 modo. For there is no animal but has such a duct ; and whatever has such a 

 dtict may properly enough be ranged under the class of animals. Plants receive 

 their nourishment by numerous fibres of their roots, but have no common re- 

 ceptacle for digesting the food received, or vent for carrying off the recrements : 

 but in all, even the lowest degree of animal life, we may observe a stomach and 

 intestines ; even where we cannot perceive the least formation of any organ of 

 the senses, unless that common one of touch, as in an oyster : where also we 

 may observe a sensible muscular motion or contraction ; though it would be 

 difficult to assign what part should be reckoned the brain, or medulla spinalis, 

 from whence the nerves arise that give it so strong a motion. 



Now this duct being so principal a part in an animal, and its use being to re- 

 ceive and digest the food, and distribute the chyle, it is reasonable to suppose, 

 that according to the difference of the food, the structure of the organ should 

 also be different ; or where the organ was the same, there the use was the same 



VOL. IV. 4 B 



