of the Teeth," observes: "The opinion which I venture to give has not been hastily formed, nor without what appeared to me sufficient grounds. It is, I think, not going too far to say that every fact connected with the human organization goes to prove that man was originally formed a frugivorous animal, and, therefore, tropical, or nearly so, with regard to his geographical position. This opinion is principally derived from the formation of his teeth and digestive organs, as well as from the character of his skin, and the general structure of his limbs." The opinions of various other celebrated writers might be quoted; but they are reserved for another part of this work.
Seeing, then, that Comparative Anatomy is so clear in its indications of the proper food of man, and that men so well qualified for giving an opinion upon the matter have expressed themselves so decidedly, it certainly is surprizing to find so many authors on physiology and dietetics ridiculing the idea of a vegetable diet; and briefly stating, without an attempt at proof, that the teeth, stomach, and other parts of man's structure, declare him to be omnivorous, or formed for a mixed diet. The misconception (for such I must consider it) seems to have arisen from confounding a fruit and farinaceous (commonly called vegetable) diet with a herbivorous one, even Professor Lawrence having misapplied the latter term. It would be absurd to contend that man was formed for deriving his subsistence from the latter kind of food, though the more esculent vegetables may occasionally be enjoyed with impunity or positive benefit; but it does not appear to me possible to derive, from Comparative Anatomy, a single argument calculated to negative the conclusion that the human organization is specially adapted to fruit, roots, grain, and other farinaceous vegetables.
Objections Answered.—1. It has been objected, that, as the orang under man's training learns to enjoy animal flesh, so, whatever was or was not man's original and natural food, experience teaches us that he can now live on animal food with impunity.
With apparent impunity, I allow. This denotes that the alimentary organs have a certain range of adaptability to a treatment not strictly natural. Just so, a lamb doing a long sea voyage was induced to eat flesh meat, and afterwards refused grass. Horses, on the coast of Arabia (Hadramaut?), through deficiency of herbage, are said to be fed on fish; so are cattle in Norway, and on the coasts of Coromandel. (Life of Reginald Heber.)
Even a young wood pigeon, which is principally granivorous, has been trained to prefer flesh to grain. On the other hand, notoriously the dog and cat, naturally carnivorous, can be brought to live principally or wholly on a vegetable diet. Young kittens so fed, do not appear to suffer in health, and, when fully grown,
