ON THE PHILOPKOGENITIVENESS OF THE CATi 
347 
from her. This time a nest of young Rabbits was found; they were put beside 
her: as I have stated, she takes every care of them, and in all probability 
they will attain maturity under her fostering care. 
This case is the more curious as Cats may be considered generally great enemies 
to Rabbits ; which indeed may be accounted amongst their natural food, as also 
may birds. Yet we see in this instance the propensity to destroy, often so 
strongly manifested by Cats, give way to that of love of young. 
We have been told by a respected and lamented philosopher, that nothing is 
more suited to throw light upon the power and constitution of the mental fa¬ 
culties than the study of their manifestations in the lower animals. Mixed mo¬ 
tives and the influence of circumstances are less likely to operate upon them 
than on man. Now the case before us is evidently not one of an ordinary kind; 
every animal of the species would not so have adopted the young of other ani¬ 
mals, and nursed them with affection. I have heard before of Cats nursing 
leverets, and White mentions his having known them suckle Squirrels. These 
cases, however, .are uncommon, and as such become questions of interest, the 
philosophic observer always expecting an efficient cause for every deviation from 
the general law of Nature. In the first place we have to observe here, that 
amongst the inferior animals there is a difference in the strength of feelings ma¬ 
nifested, as well as in the more exalted animal, man. The question then comes, 
have we to look to the influence of habit or circumstances for this difference ob¬ 
servable amongst them ? What habits or circumstances can have acted upon 
animals left wholly to themselves, as has been the case with the Cat above 
spoken of. It has never been accustomed to Rabbits or birds (I made particular 
enquiry on this head), yet it would adopt and nurse their young with its own. 
I have known animals, on the other hand, where the disposition to destroy was 
so great that they never could be taught to give up the desire of possessing 
themselves of birds that were kept in cages in the house with them, though 
strong measures were often taken to frighten them from making such attempts ; 
and also have seen the like eagerness displayed for Rabbits. 
In these cases circumstances could not be made to have effect, so as to place 
the one animal out of danger from the other. Who then can contend that cir¬ 
cumstances alone effect those different dispositions which are not only observable 
in man, but also extend to the lower animals, even to such an extreme as we 
have here related ? It is then to constitutional tendency we must look for the 
cause of those differences ; and Phrenology is the only doctrine that can clearly 
and satisfactorily explain such phenomena—^contradictions in Nature. Dr. Gall 
observed, that there was a great difference between the crania of the male and 
female amongst all the lower animals, in the part he considered to be the organ 
of the love of young, or Philoprogenetiveness. I have myself repeatedly observed 
