408 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE. 



gous. A lion, or even an ape or a. man, could not take into his stomach so 

 much grass as would afford him sufficient nourishment. Not having the teeth of 

 the ox or the sheep, and not being able to ruminate, he would fail to digest the 

 grass in any degree even approaching to perfection, and he would soon perish 

 from hunger, as not a few men have done who in times of famine have tried to 

 support themselves upon grass and leaves. 



But an ape, a rat, or a swine experiences no difficulty in digesting animal 

 food. 



Man approaches at least as near — probably nearer — to the pure zoophagous 

 type as do the rodents and the swine. ■ He has three kinds of teeth completely 

 covered with enamel ; his digestive apparatus weighs less in proportion to his 

 entire body than does that of the swine, thus pointing to a more concentrated 

 diet. Hence we should be inclined to consider that man is at least as naturally 

 and originally omnivorous as the Rodents or the Suidge. It has been contended 

 that his ''carnivorous practices have not yet changed his nature." Why should 

 they more than has been the case in other omnivorous forms ? If sharp nails, 

 projecting canines, and a rough tongue would have given man any advantage in 

 the struggle for existence, doubtless they would have been evolved. But these 

 points do not in the least tell upon his power to assimilate animal matter. His 

 intestine, though of greater relative weight than that of the pure zoophagous 

 species, is evidently required for his present mixed diet, and hence it persists. — 

 London Journal of Science. 



A LESSON IN COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 



HUBBARD W. MITCHELL, M. D. 

 "^ ^ if. * if. if. 



Having entered the wide field of Zoology, we see before us a multitude of 

 animals of different forms, sizes, colors and habits. At first view there does not 

 seem to be the least similarity between any two of them. All appear totally dif- 

 ferent and distinct. 



Here the naturalist and the comparative anatomist step in, and begin to 



study this great mass of animal life, dnd see upon what plan, if any, it is formed. 



He begins by comparison. He compares one frm with another, and sees if 



any two or more animals have any qualities in common. If so, he assigns them 



to some order and species, and in this way he simplifies their study. 



Let us apply this principle of comparison in practice. Suppose we see to*- 

 gether for instance the following : 



A Pig, Tapir, Peccary, Elephant . i 



A Lion, Tiger, Panther, Cat 2 



A Dog, Wolf, Fox, Jackal 3 



A Goat, Deer, Ox, Sheep, Camel 4. 



A Horse, Ass, Zebra 5 



