REVIEW.—ON THE CONFORMATION OF THE HORSE. 89 
principle holds good. A horse, for example, may have a good 
hock at the extremity of a powerless haunch, or a fine shoulder 
with an ill-formed croup; good withers with bad loins; a narrow 
chest and yet a well connected proper fore limb, &c. Such in¬ 
congruity, however, is very rare in the component parts of the 
head. An open forehead will be associated with a fine eye, 
spreading jaw-bones, dilated nostrils; while, on the contrary, with 
a contracted cranium we may observe a small pig-like eye, narrow 
and all but motionless nostrils, approximated jaw-bones. Such 
constitute a remarkable difference between the head and other 
parts of the body, and it is one we shall do well to note down, 
since, although a “ good ” head is recognised the moment it is seen, 
and may, to our mind, sufficiently indicate the family or pedigree 
of the horse, yet does it not follow that other parts of the body are 
in consonance therewith; and therefore it will be for us at the time, 
to come to some sort of estimate in our own mind how far “ good¬ 
ness” or intelligence in the one may compensate for want of power 
or stamina in the other. 
“ In this physical point of view, as likewise in regard to the 
intellectual faculties, the head of the horse offers to our notice com¬ 
parisons with that of man as well as with those of other animals. 
The development of intellect in general keeps pace in vertebrate 
animals with the proportion borne by the cranium to the face, and 
especially is this found to be the case in those mammiferse which 
we have had the best opportunities of studying. * * * 
The heads of Negroes and Hottentots have a nearer resemblance of 
conformation to that of the orang-outang than to that of man. This 
indisputable fact best illustrates a law of nature, shewing a gradual 
ascent up the scale of living beings, at the summit of which stands 
man. There is no sudden transition in this scale. The lowest 
man (in intellect) but approaches the highest animal, where the 
gradations are equally unstriking. 
“ The principle on which is apportioned stupidity or ferocity in 
animals, according to the development of the jaws as compared 
with that of the brain, has been established on the authority of 
Cuvier. No doubt it was the starting point of Camper, when he 
thought of measuring the intellects of races of animals, and even 
that of individuals, by the opening of their facial angle; it being 
a fact that this angle diverges in ratio to the distance the animal 
stands from man in intelligence, and converges in the opposite di¬ 
rection of the scale. Indeed, so low does this scale reach, that some 
