should classify the animal creation, according to the food they are observed to feed upon; and then the anatomist marks the minute differences in their structure, and ascertains that all carnivorous animals have alimentary organs of a particular character, and all herbivorous animals those of a totally different kind. The naturalist and anatomist having mutually aided each other by their respective observations and discoveries, and determined the established laws of relation, comparative anatomy enables us to ascertain the natural dietetic character of those animals whose natural history is unknown.
53. Between the organs of digestion, of motion, and of sensation, there is so direct and intimate a relation, and so beautiful a harmony of parts, that from the appearance of a single bone or any other characteristic part, a skilful naturalist will often be able to describe, with considerable exactness, not only the form of the skeleton, but even the dietetic habits of an extinct species. A piercing eye, a keen scent, swiftness of foot or wing, strong talons, powerful muscles, sharp angular teeth or a crooked beak, a simple stomach, a short alimentary canal, great cunning and a treacherous and cruel disposition, generally characterize the carnivorous animal; and the remark applies universally to mammalia, birds, reptiles, fishes, and insects. The herbivorous race is, for the most part, distinguished by organs and qualities the reverse of all these; and so consistent is nature in all her work, that we never find an animal with organs of a rapacious character in one part of its structure, and those of an opposite class in another part. For instance, the claws of the tiger are never combined with the stomach and intestinal canal of the sheep or the camel. All the divisions of an animal's economy are wisely adjusted to each other: perfection and unity of design mark every organ, and fit it for the function it has been destined to perform. Let us, therefore, wisely consider these workings of divine wisdom, and carefully note the lessons they are intended to teach us.7
[Note 7. This branch of our argument is never appreciated by the superficial reader. The different portions of the digestive apparatus are often represented as affording the evidence to be deduced from comparative anatomy. But to my mind the whole organization of the different classes of animals, considered in relation to their dietetic habits, presents a still more conclusive argument in favor of the frugivorous character of man. A pictorial glance at a few specimens of these several classes cannot fail to give us a vivid and impressive idea of the teachings of natural history on the subject.
