The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1880-05-05
Professor Huxley on Dogs.
london Telegraph


Professor Huxley pointed out by the aid OF
diagram, in which force was given to the Illus
tration by the skeleton of the animal being
raised on hind legs that in internal construc-
tion the only difference between man and dog
was one of size and proportion. There was not
bone in one which did not exist in the other
not single constituent in the one that was
not to be found in the other. In the case OF
the dog there was not that which, on super.
fetal examination, answered to the collar-bono
of the man: but close dissection would disclose
in the case of the lower animal little bono
varyingsin length from third to half an inch,
occupying the same place as the human collar
bone, which was indubitably rudimentary
collar-bone. 1t appeared to be of no functional
importance, but there it was.
Considering the psychological nature of tho
dog, the lecturer remarked that he might be
met at the outset with the objection, Talk OF
the mind of dog why, don't believe he has
mind" Well, the only reason he had for
assuming that the dog had a mind was the
same reason by which he assumed that all
present had minds. There was no direct evi-
dence of the fact any more in the one than in
the other Run a pin into man, and there
was start and a cry, by which they came to
the conclusion that pain had resulted. Run
pin into dog, and there was a howl and at
tempt, perhaps to bite, by which we inferred
that the animal was in a state of consciousness,
in which it also suffered pain. Could they say
that the dog was a mere piece Of animate ma
chinery? 1t was quite true that certain phil
osophersIhad held views of that kind, but COM
mon sense people would not have it, and he be-
heved the common sense people were right. At
the same time he was disposed to think that in
dogs lthe feeling of pain was infinitely duller
than in human beings. AS to the other senses
belonging to dogs, he was inclined to doubt
very much if dogs could see with anything like
the distinctness of man. Their hearing was
indisputably very acute; but it was a remark
able fact that that sense was regulated ON to-
tally different scale in dogs as compared wit,
human beings Did they ever hear of dog
taking pleasure in music? On the contrary,
the sounds of music seemed to cause him acute
pain, accompanied by horrible sort of fasci-
nation, which fastened him to the spot at which
he was subjected to the torture. Else, when q
German band was doing its worst in the streets,
why did he sit up on his launches and howl
when he might get up and run away? Yet he
often wondered whether dogs really did suffer
pain from music or whether they howled pure
ly in sympathy, as did the jackals of the prsi-
ries.
The sense of smell in dog was something
marvellous-marvellous not only for its delica-
cy, but for the fact that its discrimination of
what was agreeable and disagreeable was ex-
actly the reverse of ours. They never heard
of dog being infatuated with lavender water,
or patchouli, or Eau de Cologne he rather
revelled in the smells which to men were q
source of unfeigned horror and disgust. He
once possessed dog which he frequently left
amongst 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 hid
ing-plaee. That showed that the dog had tho
power of distinguishing the particular modif-
cation of the leather of the boots caused by the
wearing of his master, in contradistinction to
the modification produced by hundreds of
thousands of iother people present at the mo-
ment.
AS to the ability of dogs to find their way
from place to place, he believed there was All
unconscious registration in their minds of the
visual pictures presented to it in the various
tracks through which they passed, and that tho
memory worked backward until the animal
reached its 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 a dog had ideas of
equality and inequality They could easily
settle that point by offering dog large and a
small piece of meat on the same dish, and by
observing which he took first. Indeed, there
was no fundamental faculty connected with the
reasoning powers that might not be demon-
strated to exist in dogs.