170 
REVIEW. 
monographs and treatises on veterinary medicine and sur- 
gery ; and when these do appear, but little encouragement is 
given to their respective authors. 
Pare and Sydenham, the fathers of surgery and medicine 
after the revival of letters, were preceded by Vesalius and 
Harvey, the most illustrious among immortal anatomists and 
physiologists. Again, John Hunter’s inquiries into the 
structure and functions of man and animals must un- 
doubtedly be regarded as the foundation on which the 
greatest monument of surgical progress has ever been erected ; 
and, from the advance of anatomy and physiology, it may 
safely be predicated that pathology will in a direct ratio ad- 
vance. Therefore it is that we regard the work before us, 
not only as a great boon in itself, but as an omen of a 
yet brighter era. The compact form, and clear, nay 
elegant, style in which it is written, will tend to ingratiate 
the study of anatomy ; and it is a happy antithesis in this 
respect to the f Abozzo d’Anatomia e Fisiologia,’ lately pub- 
lished in Lombardy, by Patellani. 
We would gladly expatiate on M. Chauveau’s preface, 
one of the most philosophical and practically useful introduc- 
tions in the whole range of veterinary literature, but we must 
pass on to the consideration of questions of higher import- 
ance. 
In the enumeration and classification of domesticated 
animals, our author adopts the arrangement of Cuvier ; and 
he places the dog and cat in the order c Carnassiers,’ the 
‘ Sarcophaga * of Grant’s latinized Cuvierian nomenclature, 
the ‘Carnaria’ of Blvth’s. We wonder he should sanction, 
at the present day, a classification which, though wonderfully 
great at the time it was composed, can only now be adopted 
with modifications. Cuvier, that immortal genius, in whose 
steps Chauveau has striven, and that with singular success, 
to tread, evidently erred when he confounded the rats with 
lions and tigers, and these with walruses and seals. How 
striking is the contrast when, from the genera Vespertilio 
and Galeopithecus, he passes to the Erinacea; from the 
genus Talpa to speak of Plantigrade Carnivora! There is 
something plausible in Chauveau’s explanation of his choice 
