with or without animal food, includes wild plants, roots, fruits, and berries.

But the appetite of savage man is not confined to animal or vegetable food, nor to both in various combinations. He also eats dirt, clay or mud, as well as matters infinitely more offensive. He may be said, indeed, to eat anything, to be omnivorous (Houzeau). The subject, however, of morbid appetite in him, as in other animals, is so extensive as to require separate treatment.

Many human savage races live, as other animals do, by hunting and fishing, by grubbing up roots, or gathering fruits. Some of them eat lice, as monkeys do (Houzeau). "Until the arrival of Europeans the Australians knew nothing about cooking or boiling food' (Büchner). Carrion-eating is common among the Zulus (Colenso). The Bushmen of Southern Africa live partly upon 'small birds, which they swallow unplucked.' Lizards are eaten raw by the Digger Indians, with no other preparation than pulling out the tails; and they also eat 'dead horses, till nothing is left but the bones,' as well as other forms of putrid or mouldy meat. Part of the food of the Apache Indians consists of stolen horses and asses. The beasts are not slaughtered, but torn asunder.' There is no cooking of any kind among the Dokos and Mincopies, the food being eaten raw (Büchner).

6

The Hamram Arab in Abyssinia, as was long since pointed out by Bruce, and as has recently been confirmed by Baker, cuts and eats steaks from live oxen. The Veddas of Ceylon, according to Hartshorne, live on wild honey, lizards, and the flesh of monkeys, deer, and boars. The wild men of the Tinnivelly ghâts, too, feed chiefly upon roots and honey.'1

Wild men and beast children—including, for instance, the wolf children of India-usually show these theroid propensities in regard to food-capture and use even in a more marked degree or form. They tear and eat raw flesh, gather and gnaw bones like dogs, catch and swallow flies, bite the heads off live fowls, lap water with their tongues. Of one of them Gerhardt says, 'He drank like a dog, and liked a bone and " Academy, May 1875.

raw meat better than anything else. . . . His civilisation has progressed so far that he likes raw meat less, though he will still pick up bones and sharpen his teeth on them.' Of others he remarks, 'Before they eat or taste food they smell it, and when they don't like the smell they throw it away.' A boy found in company with a female wolf and her cubs 'rejected cooked meat with disgust, but delighted in raw flesh and bones, putting them out on the ground under his paws like a dog,' according to Colonel Sleeman. Of the same boy Professor Max Müller says, somewhat contradictorily of the above assertion as to cooked meat, The wolf child could devour anything, but preferred raw meat. He even ate half a lamb without any effort.' Even a quilt stuffed with cotton, given to him in cold weather, was torn by him and partly swallowed '-a kind of indiscriminate appetite and depraved taste that is frequently paralleled among the human insane in British and other lunatic asylums. Another wolf child would eat nothing but raw flesh.'

Similar bestial, feral, or animal appetites are likewise to be met with in the human idiot and lunctic, as well as in criminals, and in others of the degraded classes of civilised human society. An idiot described by Professor Cesare Lombroso 'smells food before eating,' as a dog would. I have myself had not a few patients who lived in great measure on grass, or the leaves of various trees or shrubs, or who would eat all manner of garbage or any kind of indigestible metallic substance. Dr. Browne, too, gives many instances of the use by the insane of raw flesh, of half-dead leeches, and of living kittens, rats, mice, frogs, beetles, worms, spiders, and caterpillars. But all such cases belong to the important category of morbid appetite in man, and cannot be discussed or described here.

Even among men who are neither idiotic, insane, criminal, nor illiterate, who represent, on the other hand, the highest intelligence and refinement of the age-in the armies of the foremost nations of the world-the carnivorous thirst for blood during war or battle, may be regarded as an illustration of the difficulty of concealing or overcoming man's natural bestial appetites. But we need not go far afield,

nor to the exceptional conditions of war, for instances of the same thing. The nose-biting of the Hanley dog-fighters of Staffordshire, and of their representatives in other English counties or cities, shows how little civilisation has yet done to humanise certain beast or brute men in our very midst.

On the other hand, there are certain animals that, though they do not cook food-that is, prepare it directly or indirectly by means of fire-nevertheless subject it to some rough sort of preparation prior to using it. Thus the American procyon washes its food; the elephant frees from insects and dust the branches it purposes to eat; the sacred monkeys of India destroy the fangs of venomous snakes before eating them (Houzeau); the common seal holds its food (e.g. a ballan wrasse-a fish) in its fore paws, carefully denuding it of its skin before devouring it (McIntosh).

Again, there are many animals that make free use of foods cooked by man, while a few assist him in the art of cooking, including the tendance of ovens, the turning of spits, and the regulation of fires. Thus a Borneo orang, according to Buffon, ate meat and fish, boiled and roasted.

Among the animals that imitate man in the use of boiled, broiled, baked, or roasted meats or other foods, and of hot drinks, are the dog, lori, chimpanzee, and bear. Sometimes they acquire a partiality or preference for cooked foods, and they use them even when hot from the oven or fire, or while in the oven, on the fire, or on the boil.'

Thus the bear has been known to snatch and eat directly from a fire meat that was, or was being, cooked, distributing portions to her cubs (Houzeau). Some of the anthropoid apes, moreover, use the same prepared food or drink in the same way as man. Thus the siamang waits for the cooling of his tea or coffee-more probably a lesson taught by experience than the simple result of imitation. The orang also uses tea, sugar, and milk in proper proportions, adds the milk and sugar herself, and drinks the tea as her master does, allowing it to cool sufficiently (Cassell).

Young salmon are systematically fed on fried liver or steak, powdered, at the Stormontfield breeding ponds, on

the Tay, near Perth, as they were also in the New Zealand acclimatisation experiments between 1867 and 1872.

The anthropoid apes both light or make up and tend fires, and they cook food thereon or thereby just as man does— in short, exactly imitating all his operations. Thus on shipboard they light a fire and cook food thereon. . . . De Grandpré tells us of a chimpanzee that heated the oven, let no coals fall, and summoned the baker when the oven was heated' (Büchner).

CHAPTER XXVII.

FACULTY OF NUMERATION.

AMONG the many marks of low intelligence, or of stupidity, in savage man that have struck travellers, has been their defective knowledge of number, their want of arithmetical power (Wallace). Indeed, in a sense it may be said that certain savages have no proper arithmetical knowledge, power of mental arithmetic or of arithmetical calculation-of any kind. They can scarcely be said to possess either the 'science of numbers' or the 'art of reckoning by numbers,' unless in a very limited sense and in a very rudimentary degree. Thus the Veddas of Ceylon are described by Hartshorne as quite unable to count. . . . . They cannot count even by the aid of their fingers, having no conception of number.'1

Among the Amazon Indians there are no words for numbers, and there is a similar want of arithmetical powerignorance of arithmetic, the most limited ideas of numbers— among the Eskimo and the Australian blacks (Houzeau). Even at the present day many savage tribes of Brazil and Australia cannot count beyond two or four. They have not carried their numerals beyond three or four, and can only indicate higher numbers by gestures. Oldfield even describes a tribe who count no further than the number two, and designate all beyond by a word signifying "many." A member of this tribe, after several vain attempts-by enumerating the names of the individuals to give an idea of the number of men killed in a certain native battle, ' ended by raising one hand three times in succession, by which he wished it to be understood that the number amounted to fifteen.'

1 'Scotsman' and Daily Telegraph,' August 30, 1875.

The