79. All the human organs connected with alimentation, therefore, are evidently very different from those in carnivorous animals; and although, in some respects, they differ also from the organs of herbivorous animals, they are evidently much more closely allied to those of the latter class, than to those of the former.

CHAPTER II.

MAN (STRICTLY SPEAKING) NOT OMNIVOROUS.

80. SUPPOSING, then, we had no further evidence respecting the natural food of man, than we derive from the comparison just instituted, what would be the correct inference to be deduced from it? There appears to be only one alternative; either it is intended that man should derive his subsistence from a mixture of both kinds of diet, and thus be omnivorous (as many physiologists consider him); or that he should feed upon substances of a nature and consistency intermediate between flesh and herbs; such as fruit, roots, and grain.

81. Let us take a careful and impartial view of this question. The indications of structure are, that flesh requires a tearing rather than a masticating process, little or no saliva, a gastric juice of a peculiar character, together with a short and simple alimentary canal, in order that the processes of assimilation may be expedited; for if animal food be detained too long in the alimentary passages, it is said to become putrid and injurious. On the contrary, vegetable food requires to be well masticated and intimately mixed with the saliva, a peculiar gastric

E

juice for its solution, and a cellulated colon and large cæcum, for the more complete digestion of such portions of vegetable matter, as have escaped the action of the stomach and duodenum. Now if carnivorous animals have received the very best structure for the perfect assimilation of flesh, and if herbivorous animals possess the best development for the complete and healthy solution of grass and other vegetables, then man-being different from both in the structure and disposition of the alimentary organs cannot have received the best adaptation for either kind of food; and therefore, though a mixture of both may be tolerably digested, yet neither kind can so easily and completely undergo transformation, as would be effected by the organs and secretions of animals especially adapted to its solution.

82. Physiologists inform us, that the gastric juice varies in its character, according to the food habitually taken. If flesh be eaten, the gastric juice secreted is specially adapted to its solution; if vegetables be taken, the juice changes its qualities accordingly; and if juice of an intermediate quality be formed,—in consequence of a mixture of both kinds of food, it seems to me a physical impossibility that it should produce so complete an effect upon either, as that kind which is specially designed for each. It may also be remarked, that, with people living upon a mixed diet, in proportion as animal food predominates, the power of the stomach to digest vegetable food generally diminishes. Hence the frequent complaints of vegetables and fruit disagreeing with the stomach; so that many find it necessary to be extremely.

careful of what vegetables they partake; and are perhaps obliged to limit themselves to stale bread, or biscuit, or some other simple farinaceous substance. Yet even these individuals-by gradually diminishing the amount of animal food, and adopting a correct regimen-may once. more return to their youthful enjoyment of fruits and vegetable substances generally.

83. Let us for a moment direct our attention to those organs wherein man differs from the classes of animals we have considered. The hands, and the erect position of man, seem more adapted to gather the produce of fruit trees, than either to capture objects of prey, or collect herbs; and the incisor teeth, which are comparatively of little use to the Carnivora, are in man admirably suited to the office of cutting substances into convenient portions for the grinding process of the molars, and for removing the skin or rind of fruit, &c.; while the short cuspids, or canine teeth, may be rendered similarly useful.

84. The ostensible reason for regarding man as omnivorous is, that he can subsist upon a great variety of animal and vegetable productions,-just as climate or circumstances may determine; but, if properly considered, this only evinces the wide range of adaptability which his organization has received; in considering which we are apt to overlook its special adaptation. We know that man can live on flesh alone, but this does not prove that he is carnivorous; he can also live exclusively on fruit and other vegetables, but we ought not to conclude from this that he is frugivorous; and it is equally illogical to infer that he is omnivorous because he can feed, with compara

tive health and pleasure, on a mixture of both animal and vegetable substances. The question we have to determine is, whether the development of the physical, mental, and moral powers of man, is equally complete upon whatever kind of food he lives; or whether there is a definite kind of food upon which all the interests of his economy are better maintained than upon any other. If the former be the case, then is man truly omnivorous; if the latter, he is not omnivorous. We have seen how far comparative anatomy supports the latter opinion, and we shall find it corroborated by the evidence from every other source.

85. From these and other considerations it appears questionable, whether any animal is strictly omnivorous;that is, formed for feeding indiscriminately, or without preference, upon either animal or vegetable substances; and with organs adapted for procuring, masticating, and digesting each kind of food with equal facility;—so as to attain the highest degree of perfection of which its nature is susceptible. The animals which approach the nearest to this character are the hog, the bear, and the opossum ; yet these, when in a perfectly natural state, and when food is abundant, invariably prefer fruits, roots, grain, and other vegetable produce.

86. The digestive organs of the hog, are very similar to those of man; but the teeth are widely different, excepting the true molars; which very much resemble those in the human head, and are characteristic of animals intended to feed on vegetable matter. The cuspids and bicuspids in the hog, are very similar to those of carnivorous animals; the incisors, also, bear no resemblance