ON THE ORGAN OF MARRIAGE. 
478 
'History, I would offer an opinion of my own. It appears to me that in all those 
species where the male and female mutually assist in taking care of the young, 
there is union for life: but in those species, on the contrary, in which the male 
contents himself with procreating young without assisting in any way in bringing 
them up, that the first female met serves to satisfy his desires, and that the main 
design of Nature is accomplished without the bond of union for life.” This 
observation of Gall in no wise settles the question. At the very outset, it is not 
the fact, as he states, that in those species where the female gives her attention 
to the young conjointly with the male, there is constantly union for life. The 
Hoebuck, which is attached to its female for life, does not in any way occupy 
itself in the care of the young. Gall says that this animal defends its family 
against their enemies. I do not deny the fact, but I do not think that v/e must 
necessarily attribute this conduct to the faculty of attachment to its young. 
Supposing even—which is not proved—that in certain species where this union 
for life exists, the male and female give themselves by turns to the care of their 
young,—that does not by any means prove that the two faculties are not dis- 
tinct: the one appears to me totally different from the other, since its action 
continues long after the young are separated from their parents. The explanation 
of Gall, then, is none at all. Spurzheim believes that it is attachment and 
friendship which the male and female feel for each other which determines them 
not to separate after the instinct of propagation is satisfied, and to remain united 
even beyond the season of desire. Is this not in other words saying that there 
exists in certain species a sort of attachment which induces them to remain united 
for life; and after the observations which have been made, are we not compelled 
to admit that it is not to Adhesiveness, properly speaking, that we ought to attri¬ 
bute such conduct ? 
Gall does not appear disposed to consider as a faculty belonging to man that 
of union for life; or at least he seems to view it as a modification of the organ of 
Adhesiveness, and not as a special fundamental faculty. There are, says he, 
men and women who, without any outward adventitious cause, have an aversion 
for marriage. If we could read the bottom of their hearts, we might there find 
the solution of the enigma. Are such persons incapable of attachment or friend¬ 
ship ? Do they dread the charge a family imposes ? It will be seen that this 
language of Gall is exceedingly vague, and that it is only presented to us under 
the form of a doubt. 
The more I have studied the conduct of men and the habits of many species of 
animals, the more satisfied have I remained that the feeling which leads to 
attachment to one companion for life, is the result of a fundamental faculty. 
Some observation which I have made on the human species, and many more 
