of the truisms of Phrenology, familiar to every one who has any correct acquaintance with it. If they are new to the writer, his ignorance is the cause. And in him such ignorance is culpable. He has made it a ground of misleading others. Yet he might have easily removed it, by consulting the works of phrenological writers. And he should have done so, before becoming himself a writer on the science.

Nor will his appeal to insects and reptiles avail him in his difficulties. Far from it. It has only confounded and entangled him the more, and rendered his condition the more hopeless. What does he know about the anatomy or the functions of bees, spiders, common ants, and termites? Just as much as he knows about the size and colour of his own mind—and no more. His ignorance here is, if possible, more striking than in relation to most other points; and its culpability is aggravated by the perfect ease with which it might be removed. To say nothing of the mistakes he is constantly committing, his narrow-mindedness and illiberal feelings are proof conclusive that he is no naturalist. A correct knowledge of nature never fails to liberalize the mind, and improve in it the love of truth. But that such is not the condition of our author's mind, has been elsewhere shewn. Does he know that there is not, in the insects he has mentioned, a perfect correspondence between cerebral development and mental manifestations? No, he does not; nor, rash and reckless as he is in his deviations from truth, will he deny our assertion. He knows nothing of the matter. And, unfortunately for him, some of the writers to whom he refers, and on whose statements he confidently relies, were not much better informed on the subject than himself. This is especially true of Linnæus, to whom he looks as his Magnus Apollo, neglecting the works of later and better informed writers easily accessible to him. That illustrious man was far from being distinguished as an anatomist or physiologist. Nor did he pretend to such distinction. His knowledge and fame were derived from a different quarter. It is well known that his attainments in those branches of science were but limited, even in his own day.

With the subject on which he has undertaken to instruct others, the reverend gentleman is too little acquainted to comprehend the plain fact, that brain is brain, whatever shape it may bear, by whatever name it may be known, or in whatever part of the body it may be situated, whether the head, the thorax, or the abdomen; and that therefore a ganglion, in inferior animals, may be to them precisely what a brain properly so called is to those of a higher order. Nor does he know, we presume, that, even in man, the brain is regarded by many anatomists as nothing but an aggregation of ganglions, each

ganglion constituting a distinct organ, differing in its functions from every other. According to this view of the matter, the moral organs are moral ganglions, the intellectual organs intellectual ganglions, and the animal organs animal ganglions. The name produces no effect on the function of the organ, any more than its situation.

On another point vitally important in the present discussion, he is equally ignorant ; namely, that, as relates to power, in all forms of living organized matter, superior intensity is an efficient substitute for a want of extensity-in language perhaps more easily understood, that an elevation of tone and temperament in an organ makes amends for a want of size in it. Abundant evidence in favour of this could be adduced, were it necessary to dwell on it, and had we leisure to do so. It is as susceptible of proof as any other tenet in physiology. Let us apply it to the insect tribe, and see whether it will not do something toward the removal of our author's objection, and the explanation of the mental phenomena manifested by that order of beings.

The muscular power of insects, in proportion to their size, is astonishing. Nor is this more strikingly true of any of them than of common ants and termites. One of the former is known to be able to move with ease and rapidity, under a burden of many times its own weight. Nor is this less the case, we believe, with regard to the labouring class of the latter. But, according to the most approved views now entertained on the subject, muscular strength disproportioned to size arises from one of two causes, or from both united-muscles very firmly knit and organized; or muscles rendered highly vivid and intense by an inordinate supply of cerebral influence; or, better still, we say, from the union of both. That there exists brain, moreover, wherever voluntary muscular motion connected with design exists, nobody of intelligence doubts. The position is received as a physiological axiom. That our author doubts it, or cavils at it, therefore, is but a farther mark of his ignorance or perversity, or both. He might as well deny the necessity of cerebral matter to the attribute of sensibility. It is well known that the insect tribe see, hear, taste, smell, and feel, many of them very acutely. This is strikingly true of the bee, the ant, the termes, and also of the spider, which, in some respects, has the character of an insect. But, that in all animals whose anatomy is understood, the senses are nervous and cerebral functions, is universally admitted. Apart, then, from the discoveries made by entomological anatomists, we are justified in inferring, with entire positiveness, that insects also are indebted for their senses and power of voluntary motion, to cerebral substance. As matter of opinion, to deny or controvert

this is absurd; none but a perfect ignoramus in anatomy and physiology will do it; and, as matter of fact, Cuvier, as already intimated, whose authority our author will not call in question, puts it out of dispute. His words are as follows:-"Le système nerveux de la pluspart des insectes, est généralement composé d'un cerveau formé de deux ganglions opposés, réunis par leur bases, donnant huit pairs des nerfs et deux nerfs solitaires, et de douze ganglions, tous inferieures." See "Regne Animal," tome iv. pp. 293-4. Nor is it from Cuvier alone that we derive this knowledge. To every thorough-bred entomologist of the day it is as familiar as household words. Kirby and Spence, whose works are in hundreds of libraries in our country, have diffused it very amply. Is it not amazing, then, that our author should so expose his ignorance, touching information which even courts his acceptance?-No; it is not amazingit is but in character with the conduct of all such pretenders to science as he is.

To this scheme of cerebral anatomy, common to a large class of the insect tribe, neither the bee, the ant, nor the termes is an exception. The spider also has a ganglionic brain. In fact, vision without light, hearing without sound, or smelling without odorous matter, would not be a greater anomaly, than the existence and exercise of any sense, or of any form of voluntary muscular motion, without a brain.-To return.

In ants and termites, we say, there exists surprising muscular strength, in proportion to size, in consequence of high muscular intensity; that intensity being derived in part from the inordinate motive energy of the brain and nerves. Why, then, may not the same be true of other cerebral functions? Why may not they also be inordinately powerful, on account of inordinate cerebral intensity? We might vary the question, and ask, Is it not altogether probable that they are so? We usually find a congenialness pervading all parts of the same animal-intensity and energy in one organ, and its functions associated with the same qualities in others. Whenever, then, we discover, in an animal, great power in proportion to size, in one form of cerebral matter, we are authorized, if not compelled, to infer the same in relation to others. Spiders are also exceedingly vigorous in proportion to their size, a fact denoting in them high cerebral and muscular intensity. So are bees; else, slender as their wing-muscles are, they could not bear their cumbrous bodies and burdens through the air, to great distances, and rise with them to the tops of lofty trees, as they are known to do. It is a fair inference, then, that a similar intensity in the intellectual organs of those insects may bestow on them a corresponding degree of sagacity and art. By "intensity" here, we mean nearly the same that we would by the words high tem

VOL X.-NO. XLVIII.

C

perament, or compactness, which is not confined to a part of the body, but pervades the whole of it. This view of the subject is intended for fair-minded and reasoning men. From them it will receive a candid consideration. From our author we know it will not. Nor will his treatment of it be a matter of any con

cern to us.

With the anatomy, especially the minute anatomy of insects, our acquaintance, as yet, is very limited. As far, however, as investigations on the subject have been carried, it clearly appears, that, like all other kinds of living matter, the different species of that tribe of animated nature act in accordance with their form and organization. They have organs fitted specifically for the performance of their functions. Nor is this more strikingly true of any sort of insects, than of the termites. That family, in the first place, differs not a little from every other known one, in figure, habits, and general policy. But this is not all. The family consists of three classes, breeders, labourers, and warriors, each class differing widely from the other two. The warriors will not and cannot labour, the labourers cannot breed, nor can the breeders either fight or labour. Why? Because each class, as far as it has been examined, is organized exclusively for its own mode of life and action. The warriors have shields and armour, the labourers instruments to work with, and the breeders are supplied with generative organs. Of the peculiar cerebral aptitudes of these animals, but very little is known. As the cerebral developments, however, of all other animals that have been sufficiently examined, have been uniformly found to correspond with their structure, propensities, and modes of life, it is reasonable to conclude, until the contrary shall have been made appear, that the same is true with regard to the termites. Indeed, under the present economy of things, it would hardly be extravagant to pronounce it impossible for the case to be otherwise. We every where find organization as perfectly adapted to function, as luminous bodies are to give light, or as any other causes are adapted to their effects.

We wish it to be understood, that we are now writing extru scholam, and therefore on our own responsibility. Phrenology, which deals only in facts, does not yet expressly sanction us in the views we have given; though we think reason does; and we doubt not that Phrenology will hereafter. For any mistakes we may have committed, then, the science is not answerable. They are our own; and we acknowledge and assume them, with all their consequences. Supposing them to exist, they are certainly less glaring than those into which our author has plunged on the same subject. By denying brain to termites, ants, bees, and spiders, and abstracting their minds entirely from their

matter, he makes them more spiritual than man himself, some of whose mental faculties he acknowledges to be, in some degree, referable to his cerebral organization. To insects, therefore, he awards the superiority; mind or spirit being superior to matter. His views on this subject, fairly carried out, would lead to very singular and ludicrous consequences. But we forbear to trace them.

To take leave of this subject, on which we have perhaps bestowed already too much time. Phrenology has been pushed to some extent among the animals inferior to man, but has not yet, as far as we are informed, been applied with much effect to the exposition of the propensities and other mental qualities of the insect race. On whatever classes, however, it has been brought fairly to bear, it has been found as true in relation to them as to the human race. This appears clearly from the superb work of Dr Vimont on Comparative Phrenology, one of the most interesting productions of the age. Nor are we inclined to doubt that it will be found hereafter as applicable to insects and reptiles, as to the higher orders of animated nature. Indeed, under the present organization and endowment of the animal kingdom, we deem it, as already mentioned, scarcely possible for the case to be otherwise. In those humbler ranks of being, muscles, joints, stomachs, teeth, claws, and respiratory and generative organs, serve the same purposes as in the more elevated. Each apparatus, moreover, is fitted precisely to the form, character, and mode of life of the animal possessing it. And, in the progress of our knowledge of nature, the same will, no doubt, be discovered to be true of the brain. In each species and variety of the insect and reptile tribes, where that organ exists at all, its special aptitude to the modes of subsistence and action of the beings endowed with it, will be found to be complete. But we repeat that, in making these remarks, we are not, perhaps, fully backed by what Phrenology has yet done. Our errors, therefore, should we fall into any, are not to be charged to the discredit of the science. They are to be treated as our own. Nor is there any fairness in attempting to derive objections against Phrenology from the mental phenomena of the insect races, except so far as the science may have spoken of them. Has it committed any mistakes respecting them? If so, let them be cited and exposed, and, as far as they may avail, they will weaken its claim to entire credibility-they will show, at least, that it is not yet perfect. But it is unjust to ransack, for objections to it, a department of nature into which its researches have not yet been carried. Its basis is observation; and that has not yet been pushed into every department of the animal kingdom. It will be soon enough to test the truth of Phrenology by the lower orders of