848 
ON THE PHILOPROGENITIVENESS OF THE CAT. 
this in the skulls of Cats, Rabbits, and some other animals. There is sometimes 
a difficulty thrown in the way in examining the heads of living animals by the 
external integuments, which interfere with minute observations; but the general 
fact that the female head is longer and narrower than that of the male is very 
perceptible in many species of animals. Indeed, when a boy, I remember that the 
head was one of the criterions by which I judged of the sexes of my Rabbits, a 
thick and bullet-like head indicating a male, a long and narrow one a female. 
It is rather curious, and perhaps worthy of being here mentioned, that the male 
Rabbit is very apt to destroy the young, if allowed to remain with the female 
when she brings forth; and from this circumstance Rabbit-fanciers always sepa¬ 
rate them before that takes place, I speak from observation among tame Rab¬ 
bits. In places where I have found young wild Rabbits, the mouth of the hole 
has always been covered up with soil,—is this to secrete them from the male, lest 
he should destroy them ? 
But to .return to the more immediate subject of this communication, I may add 
further, that her head very forcibly supports Dr. Gall’s opinions. The head is 
long and narrow, and it appeared to me that the occiput extended a much longer 
way from the ear than is generally the case; this was borne out by several other 
cases which I compared with it. Destructiveness also appears to be small. On 
enquiring whether she was good at killing Mice, I found that she had not any 
peculiar character in that line. 
The variation in the strength of the feelings or instincts exhibited amongst the 
lower animals, would teach us that individual character exists in them probably 
as much as in mankind. But how can we expect that any extensive knowledge 
can be obtained on this head, when even the number and kind of instincts pos¬ 
sessed by the inferior creatures has never yet been attempted to be shown ? Dr. 
Spurzheim said truly, that naturalists had paid too little attention to this sub¬ 
ject. These observers have taken every care to describe the minutest shades of 
difference in the bodily formation of animals, even to the colour of a tuft of hairy,, 
or a feather; but they have been too careless in their notes on the dispositions, 
and the modifications of these, in their investigations. Would not, however, a 
good knowledge of the mental characters of animals assist materially in forming 
a classification less liable to objections than some of the present ? The single 
word “ instinct ” has been considered enough to denote any of the mental acts 
performed by animals ; but while such a vagueness exists in our ideas regarding 
the animal mind, our nomenclature in this department must be equally vague, 
and consequently how imperfect and inaccurate must be many of the expression® 
denoting the habits, &c., of animals. It is like the language of the metaphysician 
when speaking of memory and imagination. How much more accurate, logical, 
and precise is that of the phrenologist, need hardly be said. Let us then have 
