566 REVIEW—ILLUSTRATIONS OF BRITISH ANIMALS. 
one which seems to have been lost sight of by lecturers and writers 
on the foot. If any one doubts the action or importance of the 
spring, he has only to procure a fresh leg and cut it off at the pas¬ 
tern joint, when he will perceive that the tendon, as high as the 
coronal bone, is supported by the soft elastic substance, which is 
embraced, and as it were contained, within the lateral cartilages 
that rise on each side as high as the upper part of the os coronse. 
If now he presses on this bone in the same direction that pressure 
is usually received, he will find that the bone, sinew, and cushion, 
immediately recede, slightly pressing upon the lateral cartilages; 
and the moment the pressure is removed the parts instantaneously 
regain their former position.” 
This work will form a most valuable addition to the library of 
the veterinary surgeon. 
Illustrations of the Breeds of the Domestic Animals 
OF THE British Islands : Part III. By David Low, Esq., 
Professor of Agriculture in the University of Edinburgh. 
The third part of this beautiful series of engravings is devoted 
to The Hog, and full justice is done to them in their wild and their 
domesticated state. They all of them feed on plants, but especially 
on roots, which their strong and flexible trunk enables them to grub 
up from the earth. They devour animal substances, but they do 
not seek to capture other animals by pursuit. They are voracious, 
and bold in their own defence, but they have nothing of the thirst 
for blood which distinguishes the carnivorous tribes. 
The hog exists in a wild state in almost every country of the world, 
but in each country he is distinguished by some peculiarity of form 
or habit. Mr. Shiels has given portraits of a pair that was brought 
fiom Portugal. They differ but little in appearance and character 
from those in the Zoological Gardens, except that their colours are 
brighter, and their general form more imposing. 
From the earliest times they have been subject to domestication, 
and have furnished a considerable portion of the food of man. By 
the Egyptians, however, and by the Israelites, the use of their flesh 
has from the remotest period been regarded as an abomination. 
This has been explained, by some ancient writers, as a lesson to 
abstain from the sensuality and grossness of which this animal was 
typical. Others have stated that this abstinence was almost a ne¬ 
cessary precaution in order to avoid a peculiar species of leprosy. 
It is far, however, from being certain that this is the right interpre¬ 
tation. It is safer to regard it as a custom of whose ultimate pur¬ 
poses we are ignorant, but which was then connected with the 
