i88o.] 
Analyses of Books . 
1 * 
several capital cases the author thinks that further observation 
and experiment is needful, and in his bibliography he calls in 
question the accuracy of some of his authorities. But would it 
not have been better to have brought forward none but unim- 
peachable evidence ? T • j -a 
Tust as many readers will conclude that Dr. Lindsay has said 
more than can be proved in favour of animals, there are others 
who will contend that he has exaggerated the defeCts and short- 
comings of man. The story of the fight between a man and a 
bull dog, said to have occurred at Hanley, is scarcely so well- 
founded as to call for admission in a scientific treatise. As 
regards the degraded state — moral and intelleClual of certain 
savages, it is also painted with too gloomy colours. 
Sometimes the author seems to have mis-read his authorities. 
Thus he quotes Belt as speaking of the production of artificial 
insanity in a white-faced monkey by means of corrosive sub- 
limate. As we remember the passage the animals thus mad- 
dened were not monkeys but ants, and so, indeed, Dr. Lindsay 
quotes this incident in another part of his work. 
Perhaps, however, the greatest defeCt in an otherwise valuable 
work is the frequent repetition of facts and arguments which have 
been previously given. Thus pp. 166, 167, 168, and 169 seem 
mainly a repetition, at somewhat greater length, of matter to be 
found on pp. 41, 4 2 > and 43 - 0n P- 4 ° 4 > aad a £ a1 ^ on P- 4 l6 > 
we read that a “ big dog, after rescuing a little one froin ^drown- 
ing, cuffed it first with one paw and then with the other. 
A lamentation over the fart that in Glasgow, on account ot 
three deaths from hydrophobia, the authorities— in our opinion 
most wisely and justly— ordered the destruction of all stray 
dogs, occurs in vol. i., p. 90, and vol. 11., p. 3 ^ 3 . In l h e *^ tter 
case being accompanied by some comments which sadly shake 
our confidence in Dr. Lindsay as a reasoner Indeed the glori- 
fication of dogs and the plea for immunity for their offences is 
but too prominent. Thus the destruction of dogs for “ mere 
bitino- ” ( sic I) is pronounced “ injudicious butchery.” How very 
few dogs in a country like Britain, and especially in towns, are 
anything but a nuisance, the author does not seem to have 
as ked. 
A chapter on animal stupidity — in which the intellectual cha- 
racter of the ass, the goose, and the pig is fully vindicated from 
the charges commonly brought against them is introduced 
among the abnormal manifestations of mind. Why should 
attributes common to an entire species be considered other than 
n °The 1 author’s repudiation of the phrase “ dumb animals,” and 
of the rash assumption that language constitutes a boundary 
line between man and beast, merits the warmest approval. But 
it may well be asked why the faCt that in the north of Scotland 
shepherds’ dogs accompany their masters to church should be 
