﻿$$b 0K THE DISSECTION 



on stones alone ; but surely that fact is far short of 

 proving that such substances are not agreeable to the 

 original purposes of nature in the digestive process of 

 these animals. When other substances shall have 

 been detected in the stomach ot this animal, my in- 

 ference, from what I have seen, must necessarily fall 

 to the ground. But if, like other animals with mus- 

 cular and cartilaginous stomachs, this singular qua- 

 druped consumes grain, it must be surprising that no 

 veftige of such food was found present in [he whole 

 alimentary canal, since in that thinly inhabited coun- 

 try, i he wild animals are free to feed without intrusion 

 from man. Nor can it be inferred from the structure 

 of the stomach, that this animal lives on ants or on 

 insects. Animals devoured as^ food, though of con- 

 siderable size and solidity, with a proporrionably small 

 extent of surface to be acted on by the gastric juice 

 and the action of the stomach, are readily dissolved 

 find digested by animals possessing not a cartilagi- 

 nous, but a membranaceous stomach ; as for instance, 

 a frog in that of a snake, 



Jn the stomach many minerals are soluble, and the 

 most active tlvmgs which we can swallow. Calcareous 

 subsianccs are readily acted on. Dr. Priestly has 

 asked, " May nrt phlogistic matter be the most es- 

 <' senti.il part of the food and support of both vege- 

 '•' table and animal bodies?" I confess, that 

 Dr. Priesttys finding cause to propose the question, 

 inclines me to suppose that the affirmative to it may 

 be true. Earth seems to be the basis of all animal 

 master. The growth of the bones must beattended 

 with a constant supplv ; and in the human species 

 there is a copious discharge of calcareous matter 

 thrown out by the kidneys and salivary glands. 

 May not the quadruped in question derive phlogiston 

 from earth? salt, from mineral substances? And, as 

 it is not deprived c; the power of drinking water, 



