THE ABSENCE OF WHEELS IN NATURE.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."' have read Mr. Gill's letter on the above subject with great interest. But he has surely fallen into the error of confounding the principles of organic adaptability with the constructional sense, or, in other words, of supposing that wheels, in the case of animals, would not be found as an accessory contrivance, actually constructed by the intelligent labour of the animal itself, but would form a part of the living organism—a manifest absurdity, and an absurdity which Mr. Gill is fully aware of himself. Wheels are not, strictly speaking, an invention, but are an application of the rotatory principle; a wheel is constructed by the intelligent labour of man, just as a mud-house is constructed by the intelligent labour of the beaver. And so far is it from being true that animals are unaware of the accessory value of wheels or of the application of the rotatory principle that I am prepared to give proof both of the constructive rotatory sense and of the natural provision of means by which the animal is enabled per se to approximate to a living wheel. Let us take the latter case first. Leaving out of the argument the fact that all great natural forces are circular, or tend to become circular, and that the universe itself is the result of deter- minate cycloid action, let us examine one or two familiar instances of this principle among animal forms. Both the hedgehog and the bear cub make use of the means of rotatory or wheel-like transit when, curled in a hard, compact ball, they roll themselves down slopes; and in many other animals we may discover the same idea at work. So far, we have evidence only of the conscious recognition of a principle; we have yet to prove its conscious application. Of this I can give a very remarkable instance. Some years ago I accompanied a friend on a big-game expedition in Central Africa in order to obtain photographs. In the course of this expedition we came across the following scene. A large ape of the gorilla type was seated on a circular log, which had apparently been torn with great force from one of the fallen trees which surrounded the clearing. As we cautiously approached be began to propel himself (I can describe the action by no other term) with a powerful kicking or thrusting motion of his legs, endeavouring at the same time to keep his balance on the log. I have never witnessed a more extraordinary or whimsical sight. After moving a few yards in this fashion he fell off, whereupon, snarling harshly, be dealt the log a terrific blow with his left arm, and made off towards the further edge of the clearing. The immediate result of this incident was to produce a burst of laughter, neither is it possible to regard the affair as otherwise than comic. I have, however, looked upon the episode as a clear illustration of the fact that animals are by no means unconscious of the wheel principle, and by no means incapable of applying it. The suggestion of construction is shown by the fact that the log had obviously been chosen and, as it were, prepared for this experiment.— [Does not Smorates in one of the Platonic Dialogues describe how originally man was bisexual, rotund, and rotatory, and how, self-contained and self-satisfied, be bowled merrily along the level mead of life? And then the gods grew envious, and Zens split happy and spherical man into two unhappy halves. The Co-operative Cauliflower who appears in Lear's works was nearly a spheroid, but not quite. Be had two little legs and two Snperincumbent Cucumbers to support his tottering steps. The log-rolling ape should have been sent to Congress. —ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
