The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1880-08-06
Prof. Huxley ON Dogs.

Prof. Huxley pointed out by the use
of diagram, is which force was given
to the illustration by the skeleton of the
animal being raised on its hind legs,
that in internal construction the only
difference between man and the dog was
one of size and pron There was
not a bone in the one "a did not ex-
list in the other-not single constitu-
ent in the one that was not to be found
in the other. In the case of the dog
there was not that which, OF superficial
examination, answered to the collar bone
of the man but close dissection would
disclose, in the case of the lower animal,
a little bone varying in length from a
third to half an inch, which was indu-
bitably documentary collar-bone It
appeared to be of no functional import
ance, but there it was.
Considering the psychological nature
of the dog. the lecturer remarked that
he might be met at the outset with the
objection 81 don't believe the dog has
mind. " Well, the only reason he had
for assuming the dog had a mind was
the same reason he had for assuming
that all present had minds. There was
no more evidence of the fact in one than
in the other. Run pin into man and
there was start and cry, by which
they came to the conclusion that pain
had resulted Run a pin into a dog,
and there was howl and an attempt to
bite. Could they say that the dog was a
mere piece of animal machinery? It
was quite true that certain philosophers
had held views of that kind, but COM
nonsense people were right. At the
same time he was disposed to think that
in dogs the feeling of pain was infinitely
duller than in human beings. AS to the
other senses belonging to dogs, he was
inclined to doubt if dogs could see with
anything like the distinctness of man.
Their hearing was indisputably very
acute; but it was remarkable fact that
that sense was regulated on a totally diff
ferent scale in dogs as compared with
human beings. Did they ever hear of a
dog taking pleasure in music? On
the contrary, it seemed to cause him
acute pain, accompanied by horrible
sort of fascination, which fastened him
to the spot at which he was subjected to
the torture.
The sense of smell in dog was some
thing marvellous, not only from its deli
cacy, but for the fact that its discrimina-
ton of what was agreeable and the re-
verse was exactly the opposite of ours.
They never heard of dog being infatu-
ated with lavender water or patchouli !;
he rather reveled in the smells which to
men were a source of horror and disgust.
He had owned dog which he frequently
left among the thousands frequenting
Regents Park to secrete. himself behind
tree. So soon as the animal found that
he had lost his master, he laid his nose
to the ground, and in that manner very
soon tracked him to his hiding-place.
That showed the dog had the power of
distinguishing the particular modifica-
ton of the leather of the boots caused
by the wearing of his master, In contra
distinction to the notifications produced
by hundreds of thousands of other peo-
pie present. As to the ability of. dogs
to find their way from place to place, he
believed there was an unconscious regis
tration in their minds of the visual pict-
ures presented to it in the various tracks
through which they passed, and that the
memory worked backward until the dog
reached his destination. No one could
doubt the moral disposition of dogs.
Some were trustworthy, others more or
less thieves some were amiable, others
vicious, and so on. Neither was there
any doubt that dog had ideas of equal
ity and inequality. They could easily
settle that by offering dog large and
small piece of meat on the same dish,
and by observing which he took first
Indeed, there was no fundamental fac
ulty connected with the reasoning pow
ers that might not be demonstrated to
exist in dogs.