1 882.] Bestiarianism v. Common Sense. 517 
would he admit the necessity of his goinground in a mill the 
livelong day, or dragging a tram-car, with the never-ceasing 
jangle of bells in his ears ? ” If we look into Nature we 
find that every species has the right to maintain itself, and 
increase if it can, and in order to do so it must drive out, 
extirpate, or subjugate its competitors. 
We come now to the last question, the value of physiolo- 
gical experimentation as a “ method of scientific research.” 
This is, in reality, the point which Mr. Lawson Tait, in the 
title of his pamphlet, undertakes to discuss. Greatly to our 
surprise he has not, in the strict sense of the words, even 
made the attempt. He does not refer to the many unsolved 
questions in physiology, and show either that they cannot 
be solved by experiment or that they can be preferably — or 
at least equally — well answered by some other method of 
research. He does not refer to pure biological investigation 
at all. On the contrary, he takes the following series of 
instances 
I. Treatment of injuries of the head, and the theory of 
Contre-coup. 
II. Amputation of the hip-joint. 
III. Paracentesis thoracis. 
IV. Subcutaneous tenotomy. 
V. Treatment of aneurism, ligature, and torsion of 
arteries. 
VI. Transfusion. 
VII. Abdominal surgery. 
VIII. Function of periosteum. 
IX. The ecraseur. 
X. The detection of poison. 
In all these cases he attempts to show that the discovery 
had been made by someone else, or that it was practically 
useless, or that it was made without vivisection, or at least 
that vivisection played therein merely a subordinate part. 
Now admitting for argument’s sake, as we can very well 
afford to do, that Mr. Lawson Tait is right in his contention, 
what has he proved ? As regards the utility or uselessness 
of vivisection in scientific research, nothing ! Not one of 
the instances which he discusses belongs to the region of 
pure biological inquiry, but, save the last, to practical sur- 
gery. In other words they are, or are supposed to be, 
inventions in practical art, not discoveries in speculative 
science. 
We will make brief mention of some of the purely scien- 
tific questions which remain unsolved, and we will ask any 
