The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-06-30

broken, or in other words, should ey4r any
species IN that race become extinct. Facts
however,, have disproved SO futile thSory
aad the stickiers fcr the integrity of ANNA
ted nature. have reluctantly to acknowledge,
that many OF the animals which once inha-
bited our globe. have now no longer an exis.
tence. Numerous are the vestiges which,
attest to this truth, and who will venture to
assert, that the wisdom or goodness of the
deity, has been compromised by the suffer.
ance of the event.
Before taking leave Of the theory of this
intimate connection of all animated exis-
tence, would ask its supporters where the
necessity for such connection. Have the
whole animal race been found zoophaei ?
do they devour their fellow animals, and
are they in turn devoured. that the destruc-
ton OF any one species should inevitably
bring about the annihilatioD of the whole /!
he idea. that the creator should put upon
an event SO probable, (and which has taken
place. the wreck of all animated nature,
would surely have more derogated from his
beneyolence, than that he should have bro't
any species of being into existence, and have
afterwards permitted its single destruction
Reposing IN confidence on the benevolence of
the deity. cannot believe his finger has
pointed destination which would involve
IN misery and ruin, and that the life he has
hshered into being, has been unwisely sus-
pended on the thread of another's existence.
And here let me reject, as likewise unphilu-
sophical, the hypothesis which would account
for the disappearance of any species of ami
mails. by supposing thar the Almighty should
become the instrument of their destruction.
For from whence can this agency be Infer
red
The next point of Importance which in
vites our attention, is. whether the man.
moth was amphibious or exclusively an inha-
bitant of the land! On this question, of the
twoopiniois herepresented, shall not hesi-
tate to atiix my preference to the latter.
That he was not entirely an inhabitant of
the water, is a conclusion too universally add
United to require notice. But that he occasi-
onally frequented that element, was equally
formed to exist in it as upon land, is an as
sertion which will admit of very considera-
BILE discussion. Adverse to this opinion how
ever, l will ask its supporters where the
necessity OF this resort to the water. Is he
herbivorous, and was it to procure foodi 1
cannot lind a solution here, for surely he
would have found a subsistence upon land.
Or VIII 1t be advanced, that he was piscivo-
rous! If this be thehypothesis, what were
the fish upon w HIGH hefed? Can it be sup
posed, that an animal of his unwieldy bulk
was endued with sufficient dexterity to take
those which possess any considerable agility /!
Or will it be affirmed, with late writer,
that shel-fish constituted the principal por.
ton of his uutriment! Ii this he the suppo-
sition, how very lily is it supported by pre-
sent appearances. True we have discover
ed few spccimensof this no longer existing
species OF fish, but the paucity of their re-
mains will not authorize the conclusion that
they were ever numerous. Had they have
abounded many would have been their YES
,iges at this day, as the very high state of
preservation in which the bones OF our in
Cognitum have been found, cvinces an ex-
urpation OF a ITO very remote date. But let
this period have been ever so distant, perish
able indeed must have been the shells,
which Could not eo-eAist with bones exposed
To the destructible action of the atmosphere
Should, however, this difficulty be wavet
and tie dissolution Of shells be admitted an
other impregnablc obstruction presents itself
in our way. How will it be accounted for
that an animal which in all probability, from
lis anatomical structure, could not bring his
tfoliih IN contact with the ground should
seize upon such fooll Willyou depart from
analogy and assert that an amphbious has
been gifted with proboscis? AS in snppo
sing him herbivorous, 1 have not Thought it
necessary. in fulfilling his destiny 10 i'm.
nersc him under water, SO in furnishing him
with a proboscis. / will not pervert the use
to which analogy has assigned it. IN further
opposition to the hypothesis of the Nam
moths being amphibious, "a striking fact
obtrudeS itself upon our notice. ] will de-
iaand OF ITS advocates. why the bmIes of this
animal, and sometimes immense collections
It bones have been generally found in situa-
lions where the earth is imprcSnatctl with
salt. and which must have been inundated
by water, if those ancient lakes had any ex
istence. viii they suppose aluvion at so
many particularspots Or will they sup
posa, that these animals, being fond Of salt,
collected at places where the salt waterez-
uded into the surrounding fresh water of
their lake, to satisfy the instructive propen
sites of appetite. and that the deaths were
more numerous in these places, than else
where, occasioned by the sick resortine
thither for medicine or for food. tits very
little material or formidable to the arp,l-
ment, whethe. these collections Of bones be
accounted for by the snpposition just menti
tned. or by that OF their being deposited by
the action of the waters, as they have been
noticed only because they have been suggest
ed, but from their being generally found in
saline grounds, that such situations will be
thought Indispensable to the IT, preservation,
rs conclusion which has sometimes been
deduced; conclusion, trust, can very
easily contiltc, for il unfortunately happens,
that these bones are found at othsr places
wtl;in at lcks.
viii further ask them If this animal made
his abode in lakes, why have bis bones been
found so very distant from tie probable cite
ut any lake! Why has he not been disco
ERlpu I'm the great norfkpr,, l,teS ri tuv