Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1881-07-02
PROFESSOR HUXLEY ON DOGS.

Al The hOydl AuStlbutos AoAuOAs
Professor Huxley gave the first OF q
short course of lectures on "dogs, and
problems connected with them" He
first dwelt on the physical resemblance
between dogs and men. We were in
the habit of using the terms head, limbs,
backbone, &C., alike for men and dogs
in ordinary language; and, when we
come more strictly to compare the ana
tony OF dogs aud men, We found the
resemblance was very close. So also
in reference to mental characteristics,
we commonly spoke of dogs as good or |
bad tempered, worthless, Intelligent. &c'
In fact, we measured them according to |
our own standared. And all the results |
of modern science tended to strengthen |
the teaching et our everyday language. |
In their structure. their nervous orgsni- |
zation, and their moral nature, dogs
were in every way comparable with
men. A diagram Of dog on his hind
legs and of man, with the similar
bones colored similarly, showed how
closely man and dog approached in bo-
nv structure. Anatornists used the same
names for the similar bones. .-
Professor Huxley pointed out how the
neck, the >thoracie, lumbar. aud sa-
cred regions, had practically the same
bones. The cranial cavity was different
in size, SO were the jaws, but the bones
were relatively the same. The same
applied to the limbs. The relative size
were different though the same bones
were recognized. 1t was shown by dia.
grams that the front paw OF the dog had
bone for bone the same bones as the
hand OF man, though in the dog the
thumb was shorter. In the foot the
same held good, except that in the dog
the great toe was reduced to "split'
bones, though clearly recognizable.
The collar bone OF man was but rudi.
mentary in the dog. but it was clearly
to be traced. Taking all the bones
throughout, there was no difference ex-
cept in relative size. The habitual atti-
tude of the dog on all tours had much to
do with the modification. For example,
the dog walked on pads under his fin
gers. These comparisons between men
and dogs were not speculatiOns; they
are facts. As regarded the mental ca
pacity OF dog. we inferred he had a
mind on the principle that we infer
red other human beings had minds
We saw dogs subject to pain from caus-
es which gave human beings pain and
so with pleasure. But it was not to be
supposed dogs felt exactly as we did.
Indeed, there was nothing in which hu-
man beings differed more than in their
sensation of pain.
For example. IAN Englishman roughing
it Australia would feel pain less than
when comfortable living at home. The
order OF the sense of pleasure in dogs
seems different from what it was with
US. Dogs could not see so we'll as we
did. Their hearing was more acute
but it seemed to give them pleasure in a
different way from what it did with US
For example, dog would howl at q
band giving what we might regard a:
fairly good mnsic. Their smell was
more acute than ours, but dogs did no,
appear to care Tor patchouli, eau de
cologne. or ess bouquet, while garbage
which we loathed. they revelled IN. The
way in which dog would follow the
footsteps OF his masters shoe-leathe
. and recognized the difference of tha
. shoe leather from all others was truly
:, marvellous to US with our sense of smell
a Taking the whole range of the dog-lik'
h animals. Professor Huxley recognized
q the number of species as about thirty
! Drawings Of many Of the different form
y of dog like animals, including the ictic
), yor, the iennec. and the otocyon, wer,
j., shown,