20 Vegetarianism: [January, 
is never to be trusted. The wild cattle of Lyme and ChiF 
lingham, and those of Lithuania, take the offensive when- 
ever the opportunity occurs. As for the Cape buffalo few 
beasts of prey can surpass him in ferocity. He-goats and 
rams not unfrequently attack passers-by. The red deer, at 
certain seasons of the year, cannot be approached with 
safety. Several of the larger kinds of antelopes are of an 
aggressive disposition. The larger baboons, though feeding 
upon fruits, nuts, and vegetable matter, generally are deci- 
dedly ferocious. Very similar is the case with vegetarian 
birds. An old male ostrich is decidedly to be shunned. 
The common cock, the turkey cock, and the gander are 
quarrelsome and aggressive creatures, and will occasionally 
indulge in wanton attacks. An “ auerhahn ” ( Tetrao uro - 
gallus ) once flew at us with such pertinacity that we were 
able to take him prisoner. From these instances — which, 
if needful, might be greatly multiplied— we conclude that 
diet has very little to do in determining the ferocity or the 
mildness of an animal. Both herbivorous and carnivorous 
beasts, if attacked or annoyed, will resist with equal deter- 
mination. If anyone doubts this let him offend an elephant, 
and “ make a note ” of the result. 
Vegetarians advance yet one more argument. They tell 
us that a young tiger brought up in captivity, and fed on 
milk, bread, and cooked meat, will be “ mild and gentle,” 
but that if by accident it takes blood or raw flesh its 
“ ferocity ” is immediately developed. We admit the fadts, 
but we demur to the interpretation. So long as the tiger 
has never tasted blood it remains in ignorance that human 
beings are articles adapted to its taste. As soon as it has 
had such a meal its sense of smell informs it that men con- 
sist of matter similar to what it has already eaten with 
relish. But where is the “ferocity” in this? Is there 
really more ferocity in eating animals than plants ? Is the 
Dioncea muscicapa to be regarded as malignant, in comparison 
with ordinary plants ? 
We therefore feel warranted in inferring that there is no 
reason to expedt any diminution of bloodthirstiness and 
ferocity from man’s adoption of a purely vegetable diet : 
that he would be morally improved by such a change in any 
other respebt there is not the slightest evidence. Further, 
even supposing that the rejection of animal food would de- 
crease man’s “ combativeness,” as the phrenologists call it, 
we are by no means sure that this would be an unmixed 
benefit. 
Here is the place to examine the Vegetarian assertion 
