2 COMPARATIVE ANATOMY. 



ceed to the most complex. But by considering that the most compound 

 are either ourselves, or those we are most conversant with, and therefore 

 know most of (the others being in a state of obscurity, much beyond 

 their simplicity of structure), it becomes necessary that we should perfect 

 ourselves in that we are most acquainted with : like the necessity of 

 perfecting ourselves in our native language, which we know a good deal 

 of, although it is very complex, before we enter upon another, although 

 very simple in comparison, of which we know nothing. 



The bones may justly be reckoned the basis upon which the whole is 

 built, and they give nearly the shape of the animal to which they 

 belong ; for the other parts are built upon, and chiefly depend on them. 

 The motions of the body depend on them, and a good deal of the 

 manners of the animal and external configuration, such as claws for 

 catching prey, a tail for climbing, &c. ; therefore it is the bones we are 

 chiefly to consider, by which means we shall be able to account in a 

 great degree for the differences in the blood-vessels and nerves in 

 different animals. The bones are so much the shape of the animal, 

 that most people would say when they saw the skeleton that it belonged 

 to such or such an animal. 



The brain, heart, abdominal viscera, and parts of generation do not 

 depend on the formation of the skeleton, therefore must depend on some- 

 thing else. Perhaps the different formation of the brain gives rise to 

 the difference in the animal principles ; and I dare say the different 

 manner of living gives rise to the different formation of the viscera 1 . 



The external form of the quadruped gives us a much more accurate 

 idea of the economy of the animal than [does] that of Birds ; espe- 

 cially the part that concerns digestion. From the external parts of 

 the quadruped, in which may be included the teeth, we can give a 

 pretty good guess at the formation of most of the other parts. But 

 when we view the heron and the crane, we should suppose them of the 

 same genus ; finding, however, the digestive powers of the crane the 

 same with the swan, goose, turkey, &c, what shall we determine? 



By the general figure and construction of the different parts of an 

 animal, by the formation of the joints, shape of the head, teeth, situa- 

 tion of nipples, one may form a general idea of its natural history. 



Those parts of animals whose uses and actions are immediately em- 

 ployed in the internal operations of the animal, such as the organs of 

 digestion, secretion, <fec, are generally in size in proportion to the kind 



1 [Is it not " That the viscera are adapted originally for the kind of food on which 

 the animal is to be supported ?" — Wm. Clift.] A question still under controversy. 

 The advocates of the ' Transmutation ' or ' Natural Selection ' hypothesis may take 

 Hunter's words in their literal sense, and claim him as of their party. — R. O. 



