^{page 479 note *} There are exceptions to this remark. The elegant writer of the Zoological Magazine, whose taste and judgment in every thing affecting zoological inquiry are so correct, did not give credence to the statements I have alluded to regarding the structure of the lama's stomach.

^{page 480 note *} Griffith's Animal Kingdom.

^{page 480 note †} Sir E. Home has inferred, from the examination of the structure of the stomach of the young lama, that “the stomach has a portion of it, as it were, intended to resemble the reservoirs for water in the camel; but these have no depth, are only superficial cells, and have no muscular apparatus to close their mouths and allow the solid food to pass into the fourth cavity, or truly digesting stomach, without going into these cells.”—Comp. Anat. vol. v. p. 249.

^{page 482 note *} The presence of certain generative organs in the male and female, and of the hyoid bones, in the Mammalia, together with nearly all rudimentary organs, including the swimming-bladder of fishes, urinary bladder in the same animals, &c. have hitherto defied the attempts of all anatomists to explain. Mr Hunter said that “Nature was fond of analogy;” and so, I presume, in sport, placed organs in animals which seemingly performed no functions; but these explanations will not pass current now, I presume, with any one who pretends to any physiological judgment.

^{page 485 note *} Though the camelopardalis has now been known to man for some thousand years, no anatomist in the world could have predicted the form of its stomach previous to dissection.

The stomach of the hippopotamus is complex; that of the rhinoceros simple; yet their food is similar. I know of nothing in the form of the skeleton or other structures which, being presented to the anatomist separately, and unconnected with its other parts, could enable the anatomist to decide on the nature of any of these animals without an exact examination of the whole of the structure, and a knowledge of their habits, drawn from observation of the living species; and if, in the examination of fossil remains, we venture to pronounce dogmatically on a few of the best made out genera, and declare such a bone to belong to the hyæna tribe, such another to the tiger, elephant, and so on, such opinions are after all but probable conjectures, unfitted by their nature to form a basis for a solid theory of animal bodies. Moreover, they cannot go beyond mere generalities.

^{page 487 note *} Mr Hunter used to explain the presence of parts and structures in animal bodies, whose presence were obviously not requisite, by the highly figurative, and to me unintelligible, phrase, that “Nature placed them there because she delights in analogies.”

^{page 494 note *} The calling it a rudimentary stomach, analogous to one found in the ox, sheep, and common ruminants, does not elucidate the matter greatly.