670 MEMOIR OF REV. JOHN FLEMING, D.D. 
on the deluge for a place where to reply would not be etiquette. FLEmiING’s re- 
joinder, in his paper “‘ On the Geological Deluge as interpreted by Baron Cuvier 
and Professor BuckLAND, ” was so crushing, that the third edition of the “ Reliquize 
Diluvianee,” then in the press, was withheld. Professor Sepewick said of this 
paper, “ that he had often heard of the tomahawk and scalping-knife in warfare, 
but this was the first time he had ever seen it employed in scientific literature.” 
Another paper contributed to the “Edinburgh Philosophical Journal” in 
1829, “On the Evidence from the Animal Kingdom tending to prove that the 
Arctic Regions formerly enjoyed a Milder Climate,” deserves notice for the philo- 
sophic views it contains. In this paper FLemine has shown, Ist, If two animals 
resemble each other in structure, their habits may be dissimilar; 2d, If two ani- 
mals resemble each other in external appearance, their habits may be dissimilar 
and, 3d, If two animals resemble each other in form and structure, their physical 
and geographical distribution may be widely different. He has also shown, in 
this most conclusive and masterly paper, how far analogy should be our guide in 
studying the former and present condition of animals on the earth. 
Cuvier had been successful in the employment of this guide, but he followed 
it too far, and fell into errors at variance with well-known facts, which FLEMING 
did not spare in this paper. Cuvier says,—‘“ Any one who observes only the 
print of a cloven foot, may conclude that the animal which left this impression 
ruminates; and this conclusion is quite as certain as any other in physics or in 
moral philosophy.” In his criticism of this passage FLEMING says,—“ Observa- 
tion had discovered many animals with cloven hoofs which ruminated, but in 
such circumstances would it be safe to infer that all cloven-hoofed animals 
ruminate? Conceive ourselves contemplating the footmarks of a sheep and sow. 
Under the guidance of Cuvier’s declarations, we would conclude that both 
ruminated—an inference true in one case and false in the other. Observation 
here warns us against the employment of a guide so liable to deceive us.” 
It is not easy to condense a paper such as this on the question of the former 
condition of the earth; suffice it to say, that he triumphantly set the question at 
rest, in regard to the argument of the Siberian mammoth being a proof of a 
higher temperature obtaining in those regions, and in alluding to the supposed 
scarcity of food he says,—‘ There is no difficulty in conceiving the elephant 
capable of securing food, when we know that many of our largest quadrupeds 
at present people those regions, such, for example, as the musk ox, the mouse deer, 
and the bison. We may know the kind of food the existing species prefer, but 
this yields no aid in determining the taste of the extinct species. Who is there 
acquainted with the gramineous character of the food of our fallow deer, ata or 
roe, that would have assigned a lichen to the rein-deer.” 
In 1828, FLemine published his ‘“ History of British Animals,” which will 
ever be a monument of his patient and philosophic discrimination. Some idea 
. 
. 
: 
' 
* 
x 
z 

