VOL. XXII.] PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS, 555 



mountain, &c. It is true the French u)emoirs tell us, that a lion has a colon 

 18 inches long, and an appendicula vermiforinis 3 inches ; and that in a lioness 

 the colon was two feet, and the caecum two inches long : yet I question whe- 

 ther we may properly call this a colon : for though the gut about this place may 

 be more extended than in others, yet not having those ligaments by which the 

 gut is corrugated into cells as in a human body, I think, strictly it does not de- 

 serve that name. So likewise as to the colon in a cat. 4. A boar has no colon 

 nur ccecum. 5. A mole, which feeds on worms and insects, has no colon nor 

 caecum. 



In the next place we may consider those animals that are not carnivorous, 

 but live upon herbs, fruits, roots, &c. all which have a colon or ceecum, or 

 both ; for as to your query, I think it much the same, whether they have either 

 one of these only or both ; provided that the capacity of the gut there be large 

 and extended, and do contain faeces : as ] . The horse-kind ; in which may be 

 included the ass, the mule, &c. which have a large colon and caecum ; 2, the 

 elephant ; 3, the dromedary and camel ; 4, the several species of the swine- 

 kind ; 5, the guinea-pig; 6, the castor or beaver; 7, the hare kind ; 8, the 

 ape and monkey-kind. 



Now there are several animals that have a large caecum and no colon, and 

 these also are not carnivorous, but live upon grass, fruits, roots, &c. as ] , the 

 neat-kind ; 2, the sheep kind ; 3, the stag-kind ; 4, the goat-kind ; 5, the 

 antelope ; 6, the squirrel-kind ; 7, the rat-kind. 



By all which you may plainly perceive what good grounds you have for form- 

 ing your notion : since there are so many animals that are carnivorous, that 

 have no colon nor caecum at all ; and, on the other hand, how vast a number 

 there are that are not carnivorous, that have either a colon or caecum, or both. 



But notwithstanding all this, we may be mistaken in the conclusion, which 

 we may be apt to draw from hence : and may as well argue, that because the 

 neat-kind, the stag-kind, the goat-kind, and the sheep-kind, that live on herb- 

 age, have four stomachs, therefore those that have not four stomachs were not 

 designed by nature to be graminivorous. Now the horse-kind, the hare-kind, 

 &c. have but one stomach, and yet their food is grass. And the case is here 

 the more remarkable, because the stomach is a part more principally concerned 

 in digesting the food. The intestines are for separating the chyle and carrying 

 off the faeces. Yet we observe even in animals that live on the same sort of 

 food, that their stomachs are very different. One would therefore be more apt 

 to think, that for digesting the variety of food, and what is of a different na- 

 ture, that the organ that is to perform it should be different too. Yet we find 

 the stomachs of animals that live upon flesh, of others that live upon fruits, 



4 B 2 



