There is no vice in the human species without its representative in some class of animals. Thus, the inclination to theft, to destroy, &c., are found in some species existing to a great degree. So, too, with luxuriousness. There is a class of apes--the dog-faced--which represent it. It is impossible to form an idea of the lasciviousness of these animals, which is manifested at sight not only of a female of their own class, but at that of a woman: they show by their looks, gesture, and voice, that they are excited. They are extremely jealous at sight of a man. They indulge in coition to great excess; and if this be impossible, they abuse themselves. How does their organization differ from that of other animals?--in the cerebellum?--in the spinal marrow? No: but according to Desmoulins, by the enormous mass of erectile tissue which they have. This tissue abounds not only around the sexual organs, but is found in the haunches and pubis. In the face, it is not confined as in us to the lips, but it covers the face, and there presents a brilliancy of color which exceeds that of the vulva and glans in our species. It should be remembered that the kunocephali do not exhibit this lasciviousness until puberty, when this tissue is developed, and assumes its brilliant colors. Here, then, are animals, in whom the erectile tissue evidently performs the part attributed by phrenologists exclusively to the cerebellum. Why may not the same thing exist in our species? Are not the penis and clitoris, generally speaking, much larger in those who have a marked propensity for the pleasures of love? Is not their erection the most constant sign of the activity of the venereal sense? Is not the erectile tissue developed at puberty, at the same time with this sense, and does it not collapse in old age? Finally, does not the genital sense exist at its highest degree in the glans--the clitoris--that is, in the organs formed entirely of this tissue?