The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1881-11-16
Prof. Hu1Ier on Dors.

Prof. Huxley pointed out by the uso
Of n diagram, in which force was given
10 the illustration by the skeleton ui tho
animal being raised on IT, hind legs,
that in internal construction the only
difference between man and the dog was
one Of size and proportion. There WIS
not a bone in the one which did not exc
ist in the othcr-uot a single cUustitu-
ent in the one that was not 81 be iJunl
IN tho other. In the caao of the dog
there was not that which, OF superficial
examination, answered to the c0llu-hono
Of the man but close dissection would
disclose, In tho case of tho lower animal,
a little bone varying in length from "a
third 10 half an inch, which was indus
bitably a rudimontary collar-bunc. 10
appeared to DO Of no functional import
ance, but there il was.
Considering the psychological nature
Of the dog, the lecturer remarked that
he might be met no the outset with tlr
objection: 81 don't believe tho dog has
a mind" Well, the only reason hc had
for assuming tho dog had a mind was
the same reason ne had Tor assuming
that all present had minds. There was
no more evidence Of the fact in ono than
in the other. Run pin into a man and
there was a start and q cry, by which
they came 10 the conclusion that pain
had resulted Run a pin into q dog.
and there was n howl and an attempt t.
bite. Could they say that the dog was n
mere piece Of animal machinery 10
was quite true that certain philosopher
had held views Of that kind, but COM
nonsense people were right. AZ tho
same time he was disposed 30 think that
in dogs the feeling Of pain was infinitely
duller than in human beings. A. o. the
other senses belonging 10 dogs. d. was
inclined 10 doubt II dogs could see with
anything like tho distinctness of man.
Their hearing was indisputahly very
acute but IL was a remarkable fact that
that sense was regulated ON "a totally dc.
ferent scale in dogs as compared with
human beings Did they ever hear 81
dog taking a pleasure IN musicY Ca
the contrary, IL seemed to cause him
acute pain, accompanied 10y horrible
sort of fascination, which fastened him
10 the spot at which ho was subjected to
the torture.
The sense Of smell In n dog was sDme-
thing marvellous, not only from its deli
cacy, but for the fact that its discrimina-
tion of what was agreeable and tho re-
verse was exactly the opposite Of ours
They never heard Of n dog being iniatu-
ated with lavender water or patchouli
he rather rovelcd in the smells which 10
men were a source Of horror and disgust.
He had owned a dog which ho frequently
left among the thousands frcqucnting
Regents Park 10 socrete himself behind
a tree. SO soon as the animal found that
he had lost his master, ho laid his nose
10 the ground, and in that manner very
soon tracked him 10 his hiding-plncc.
That showed the dog had the power of
the particular modiiica-
tion Of the leather of the boots caused
by the wearing of his master. In cuutra-
distinction 10 the notifications produced
by hundreds Of thousands ~ other poo-
pie present. As % the ability of dora
10 find their way from plnoo ~ place, be-
believed there was an unconscious rrgis-
lntion in their minds Of the visual pici-
1res presented b. il In tho various tracks
through which they passed, and that the
memory worked backward until tlo dog
reached his destination. No ono could
loubt the moral disposition 81 dota
some were trustworthy, others more 90
less thieves some were aminblc, others
vicious, and so ON. Neither wns there
any doubt that a dog had ideas of equal
.ty aud inequality. They could easily
settle that by offering a dog D large and
small piece a meat on the same dish.
and by observing which be took first
there was no fundamental Fac
ulty connected with the reasoning pow
arH that might not bc demonstrated ~
exist in dogs.