an intermediate animal, there is an intermediate character of food which precisely suits the var- ious organs of mastication and assimilation which have been con- sidered as the standard of comparison, and that this diet consists of fruits, roots, gi'ain, and vegetables. An impartial view of the question, therefore, presents man as an independent species of animal, with a specific character of food in relation to his physi- cal constitution, altogether differing from herbage on the one hand, or flesh on the other ; and when the comparisons insti- tuted between him and other animals are fairly carried out, the intestinal canal is not merely six or seven times the length of his body, but twelve times, leading to the conclusion, in this, INTRODUCTION’. 6 as in other respects, that ho is a fruit and grain eating animal, closely approximating in his physical constitution to the simi®, a tribe of animals subsisting entirely on fruits, roots, and grain, and provided with teeth similar to those of man, the principal difference being, that the canine or eye-teeth are generally much more developed than in man. Indeed, the canine teeth argument is very unfortunate, in proving far too much for the mixed diet system ; since, if accepted as ordinarily presented, as indicating that man is to consume flesh, the inference would be, that the monkey tribe, as well as the horse and the camel, which possess these teetli more developed than man, should necessarily be more carnivorous than he. We have probably bestowed somewhat more attention upon this opposing argument than it in itself merits, since the objec- tion is but the result of false reasoning, and has never been enter- tained by the greatest naturalists and physiologists who have fully directed their attention to this subject, a few brief extracts from the writings of whom we here present, as confirmatory of our position, as well as for the redemption of those great authorities from the popular error attempted to be fixed upon them. Linn^us, one of the most celebrated naturalists, speaking of fruit, says “ This species of food is that which is most suitable to man : which is evinced by the series of quadrupeds ; analogy ; wild men ; apes ; the structure of the mouth, of the stomach, and the hands.” ♦ Baron Cuvier, whose knowledge of comparative anatomy was indisputably profound, and whose authority is therefore entitled to the greatest respect, writes thus Fruits, roots, and the succulent parts of vegetables, appear to be the natural food of man : his hands afford him a facility in gathering them ; and his short and comparatively weak jaws, his short canine teeth, not passing beyond the common lino of the others, and the tuberculous teeth, would not permit him either to feed on herb- age or devour flesh, unless those aliments were previously pre- pared by the culinary processes.” Gassendi, after a careful comparison of the teeth of man with those of other animals, declares ” Wherefore, I repeat that * “ Li.VN.Ki Am.'enitates Academic®," voL x. p. 8. 6 INTRODUCTION.

AI-modernized reading of the original text

an intermediate animal, there is an intermediate character of food which precisely suits the various organs of mastication and assimilation which have been considered as the standard of comparison, and that this diet consists of fruits, roots, gi'ain, and vegetables. An impartial view of the question, therefore, presents man as an independent species of animal, with a specific character of food in relation to his physical constitution, altogether differing from herbage on the one hand, or flesh on the other ; and when the comparisons instituted between him and other animals are fairly carried out, the intestinal canal is not merely six or seven times the length of his body, but twelve times, leading to the conclusion, in this, as in other respects, that ho is a fruit and grain eating animal, closely approximating in his physical constitution to the simiae, a tribe of animals subsisting entirely on fruits, roots, and grain, and provided with teeth similar to those of man, the principal difference being, that the canine or eye-teeth are generally much more developed than in man. Indeed, the canine teeth argument is very unfortunate, in proving far too much for the mixed diet system ; since, if accepted as ordinarily presented, as indicating that man is to consume flesh, the inference would be, that the monkey tribe, as well as the horse and the camel, which possess these teetli more developed than man, should necessarily be more carnivorous than he. We have probably bestowed somewhat more attention upon this opposing argument than it in itself merits, since the objection is but the result of false reasoning, and has never been entertained by the greatest naturalists and physiologists who have fully directed their attention to this subject, a few brief extracts from the writings of whom we here present, as confirmatory of our position, as well as for the redemption of those great authorities from the popular error attempted to be fixed upon them. Linnaeus, one of the most celebrated naturalists, speaking of fruit, says “ This species of food is that which is most suitable to man : which is evinced by the series of quadrupeds ; analogy ; wild men ; apes ; the structure of the mouth, of the stomach, and the hands.” ♦ Baron Cuvier, whose knowledge of comparative anatomy was indisputably profound, and whose authority is therefore entitled to the greatest respect, writes thus Fruits, roots, and the succulent parts of vegetables, appear to be the natural food of man : his hands afford him a facility in gathering them ; and his short and comparatively weak jaws, his short canine teeth, not passing beyond the common lino of the others, and the tuberculous teeth, would not permit him either to feed on herbage or devour flesh, unless those aliments were previously prepared by the culinary processes.” Gassendi, after a careful comparison of the teeth of man with those of other animals, declares ” Wherefore, I repeat that * “ Li.VN.Ki Am.'enitates Academic®," voL x. p. 8.

Vegetarian cookery