Morning journal and courier., 1880-04-30
Prof. Huxley on Dogs.
The Unity of Structure and Character
 Between the Dog and Man-The Ca-
 nine Mind.

The Unity of Structure and Character
 Between the Dog and Man-The Ca
 nine Mind.
 From the London Telegsph.]
 Prof. Huxley delivered yesterday afternoon to distinguished audience at the Royal Insti- tuition, the first of two lectures on 'sDogs, and the Problems Connected with them" He commenced by remarking that there was no animal in which man took so profound an in terest as the dog. The unity existing between the dog and man was very striking, not only in relation to the physical nature but the moral nature of the two animals. Taking first the question of physical similarity, Prof. Huxley pointed out by the aid of a diagram, in which force was given to the illustration by the skeleton of the animal being raised on hind legs, that in internal construction the only difference between man and dog was one of size and proportion. There was not bone in one that 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 superficial ex- animation, answered to the collar bone of the man but close dissection would disclose, in the case of the lower animal, little bone, varying in length, from a third to half an inch, occupying the same place as the human collar bone, and which was indubitably ru- dimentary collar bone It appeared to be of no functional importance, but there it was. The great toe, which was conspicuous in the man, was only rudimentariy represented in the dog but that was @ difference only of form and proportion and of attitude. Man and dog were constructed on the same plan as two churches built in the same style of architecture but differing in detail Considering the psy chological nature of ths dog, the lecturer re- marked that he might be met at the outset with the objection "Talk of the mind of the dog; why, don't believe he has c mind" 7" We'll, the only reason he had for assuming that the dog had @ mind was the game reason by which he assumed that all present had minds. There was no direct evidence of the fact any moro in the one than in the ether. He proceeded in this matter on the plain ground of common sense, which led them aright in their daily affairs, and upon which was founded the general axiom that, where there was nothing to the contrary, like causes produced like effects. Run pin into man, and there was start and cry, by which they came to tho conclusion that pain had resulted. Run pin into dog, and there was howl and attempt, perhaps, to bite, by which we inferred that the animal was in state of con- sciousness in which it also suffered pain. 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 very much if dogs could see with anything like the distinctness of men. Their hearing was indisputably very acute; but it was re- markable fact that that sense was regulated on totally different scale in dogs as compar ed with human beings. Did they ever hear of dog taking pleasure in music? On the contrary, the sound of music seemed to cause him acute pain, accompanied by horrible sort of fascination, which fastened him to the spot at which he was subjected to torture. Else, when German band was doing it's worst in the streets, why did he sit upon 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 purely in sympathy, as did the jackals of the prairies. The sense of smell in dog was something marvellous marvellous not only for it's delicacy, but for the fact that it's discrimination of what was agreeable and disagreeable was exactly the re- verse of ours. They never heard of dog be- ing infatuated with lavender water, or patch ouli, or eau de Cologne; he rather reveled in the smells which to men were a source of un- feigned horror and disgust. He once pos sessed dog which he frequently left among the thousands frequenting Regents Park, to secrete himself behind 8 tree. So soon as the animal found that he had lost his master he laid his nose to the ground and in that man. ner very soon tracked him to his hiding place. That showed that the dog had the power of distinguishing the particular modification of the leather of the boots caused by the wearing of his master in contradistinction to the mod ifcations produced by hundreds of thousands or people pE0S0ub aG Lu0 AOu6At. AS tO Lu0 ability of dogs to find their way from place to place, he believed there was unconscious registration in their minds of the visual pie lures presented to it in the various tracks through which they passed, and that the mem ory worked backward until the animal reached it's destination. Indeed, there was no funda- mental faculty connected with the reasoning powers that might not be demonstrated to exist in dogs. Now, while there was this unity between dog and man, he did not mean to say that the difference between them was not so very great, but the difference was strict ly measurable one. Man had left the dog behind, ss their poor fftieth cousin, ever faithful, ever intelligent, and with great men tsl gifts and capacity, but sadly ignorant of the three R's and all learning that followed thereon. After illustrating by means of dia- grams the variations of the dog as inow ex- tant, in the wolf. the jackal, and other nj mals, Prof. Huxley concluded his lecture amid hearty applause,