not less than twenty years afterwards, that I shall be fulfilling a task, grateful to the memory of Abernethy, by transferring from his own to these pages, both the one and the other :

"In the more imperfect animals," Mr. Hunter says, "it is very probable that there are no fixed parts, but that all parts are irritable and have motion. As animals become complicated, and have various motions, especially the progressive, such motions are more divided or partial; for which purpose it is necessary there should be substances whose firmness and structure, and mode of connection, should divide and determine the motions to particular parts. These structures are differently placed in different animals. In the earth worm, caterpillar, and nereis, the firm structure is the skin, which is divided into rings, all of which have motion on each other, and into these are muscles inserted, so that a variety of particular motions is produced. In insects, spiders, and lobsters, whose firm parts are more complicated, and answer a greater variety of purposes, we find the fixed parts still more dense. In the two former they are of a horny, and in the latter of a calcareous nature. These parts also make a covering for the animal, but there are processes of them going deep for the attachment of muscles. In tortoises, lizards, snakes, &c., though they have firm, external coverings, yet there is an internal apparatus for motion which is principally bone. In the more perfect animals, external firm parts are more rarely found. They have an internal osseous skeleton, so that the muscles and their attachments are

reversed; and thus we find them arranged in the fish, fowl, and quadruped. Shell is a substance made use of in the animal kingdom, chiefly as a defence against accidents, serving the purpose of a retreat."

What Cuvier tells us, is, that some animals are soft and undefended; some inhabit shells; some may be said to have an external articulated skeleton, serving also as a defence; and the rest an internal skeleton. He remarks how curious it is that insects, having an external articulated skeleton, possess such a combination of motive powers, that some of them walk, run, leap, swim, and fly with as much facility as beasts, birds, and fish, exercise one or more of these faculties. He thinks that they are indebted for these advantages to the numerous articulations which their case or skeleton possesses. It might strike a person who had not considered the subject, that there were animals possessing both an internal and external skeleton, as those of the reptile tribe.

The muscles of insects, however, act upon the external case, which is therefore similar to the skeleton. The shells of tortoises are to be considered merely as armour, as defences against injuries, which the animals have neither the power to oppose, nor agility to avoid. Even amongst

the higher order of quadrupeds, some wear this kind of armour, as the rhinoceros; and many have such thick hides as protect their possessors from trivial injuries; hides like the leathern doublet of Hudibras, which,

"Though not ball was cudgel proof."

Abernethy's own illustration, no doubt.

These extracts tended much to convince Mr. Abernethy that, notwithstanding the advantage possessed by Professor Cuvier, of subsequently accumulated knowledge, there is scarcely anything in his lectures with which Hunter was unacquainted.

The following passage is so creditable to his acuteness, as well as propriety of feeling, that I must not omit it:"Comparative Anatomy furnishes abundant facts to the natural theologian, showing that intelligence must have operated in the construction of living beings by the evidence it affords of design, and of the adaptation of means to ends. This observation is, however, more perfectly verified by human, than by comparative, anatomy; for so well is man acquainted with his own wants and desires, and with the structure of the human body, that he must be a dull, inconsiderate, or perverse character, who can contemplate the organs and structures which compose it, without a feeling of admiration. The very reverse happens in comparative anatomy. Many of the animals we examine are, when living, concealed from our view; they are hid beneath the surface of the earth, or the waters; they fly aloft in the air; or secrete themselves in the recesses of the forest; so that we have little acquaintance with their habits, or peculiar wants and desires. We cannot, therefore, so well perceive the reasons of those varieties of formation we discover, nor judge of their adaptation to the peculiar exigencies of the being that possesses them. In many instances, also, the organization is extremely obscure, and in some it is probable that it never can be developed.

"There are minute animals, the motions of which are extremely vivacious, and in which all the processes of life are carried on with great celerity and vigour, yet no organization can be detected in them, even by the aid of the microscope. We are, therefore, obliged to conclude, either that there may be organization, which is wholly undiscernible; or that life can execute its functions unconnected with those kinds of organization, which we observe in animals in general. Whatever may be the structure of animals, we cannot, however, but perceive, that each possesses means of procuring sustenance adequate to its wants; so as to ensure its perfection of health and growth, and powers to continue its species. Neither can we avoid remarking, how admirably the perceptions and faculties of animals are adapted to the situation which they occupy in the graduated scale of existence. As far, also, as we can discern, we perceive the same evidences of design and admirable contrivance; and the facts we learn from the examination of the structure and functions of living beings in general, may, indeed, be said to come more home to every man's business and bosom,' than any we collect from the study of Nature in other departments of science."

Such extracts as the above may at first sight appear almost trivial to readers conversant with the admirable works of their learned and pious countrymen, who have written on the subject of Natural Theology; but they are by no means so when taken as indicative of the tone of mind which not only pervaded Mr. Abernethy's more carefully composed and sustained writings, but gave so high a

worth to the numberless reflections of similar import with which his regular courses of lectures and familiar conversations with his pupils abounded.

In allusion to the very general fascination of Grecian sculpture, he observes :- "With a kind of intuitive perception of whatever is excellent or beautiful, the Greeks formed an ideal perfect head, and have exagerated those circumstances in which the human head differs from that of a brute; yet with a delicacy that leaves the excess beyond what is natural to man not readily distinguishable. The head of a brute has its forehead oblique, or declining towards a horizontal line drawn from the top of the face; and the sides of the forehead converge from the orbits, so as to make it narrower at the top than at the bottom. The Greeks made the human forehead advance a little before a perpendicular line, and they raised it to an uncommon height. They made it also diverge from the orbits, so as to be broader above than below. The eyes of animals are placed at the sides of the head, so that they see laterally, and some even behind them. The human eyes are made to look forwards; whenever they glance to a side, they indicate either fear or distrust. The Greeks seem to have paid attention to this point; the eyes are made to look straight forwards, and the outer edge of the orbit is so wrought up as seemingly to preclude a contrary vision. The eyebrow is a feature peculiar to the human face; and I think it must be regarded chiefly as an organ of expression. In the antique head, this part is finished with much labour and skill. The bridge of the nose is also