The young rhinoceros at the Zoological Gardens in using its
horn to root up the barrier between its stall and that of the female, as it would use it to root up trees in the forest, broke it off, on which there was a considerable loss of blood, and the animal roared lustily for a few minutes, when it quieted down, began to take its food as usual, and seems no worse for the accident. On this it is remarked, that the fact that the animal should "of his own accord injure himself to such an extent is another proof, if one were wanting, that the sensitiveness to pain is not so great in animals of low cerebral organization as in man." We are not in the least aware whether a proof of this thesis is wanting or not, but this does not appear to us to show it. Of course, the horn itself itself has no more sensitiveness than a boy's tooth, and it was only the breaking it out and the exposure of the root which gave it any pain. Might not the rhinoceros, if it had the sense, make precisely the same criticism on the proceedings of any boy, who, in cracking a hard nut, broke out his tooth at the root from the gum, and, after bleeding and crying a little, quieted down, and began to suck lollypops as usual? Would the fact that the boy should" of his own accord injure himself to such an extent be another proof that the sensitiveness to pain is not so great in animals of high cerebral organization as in the rhinoceros "?
Previous page
