“Some animals have horns, some have hoofs, some talons, some claws, some spurs and beaks; man hath none of all these, but is weak and feeble, and sent unarmed into the world. Why?—a hand, with reason to rise it, supplies the place of all these.”—RAY. FORM OF EXTREMITIES DIFFERS IN INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME SPECIES. Sir J. Barrow states of the Hottentot that there is not an animal among the numbers that range the wilds of Africa, if he be at all acquainted with it, the print of whose foot he cannot distinguish. The print of any of his companions’ feet he would single out among a thousand. That particular species of animals can be distinguished by their feet appears, then, an undoubted fact; and it is not less true than that modifications in the form of the extremities are met with among animals of the same species. Thus the male frog is distinguished from the female by the presence of a more fully-developed thumb and the addition of a velvety, cushion-like substance to its outer surface, by means of which he is enabled to grasp the latter more securely, and ensure the fecundation of the eggs. The land-frog (_Hyla_) differs from the common frog (_Rana_) in possessing a viscous disc at the extremity of each toe, so that this animal can readily mount the branches of trees in search of prey. The courage of the falcon is estimated by the form and disposition of the wing feathers, and that of the fighting cock by the conformation of his foot. But it is to the hand of man,—the emblem of his vast superiority over all the lower animals, that we would more particularly invite attention. The hand of man, like the appendages to the trunk of animals, has a certain definite relation with his whole organisation. As Sir C. Bell observes, “The possession of an instrument like the hand implies that there must be a great part of the organisation which strictly belongs to it concealed. The hand is not a thing appended, or put on to the body, like an additional movement in a watch; but a thousand intricate relations must be established throughout the whole frame in connexion with it.” The form of the hand, like that of the entire body, is materially influenced by age, sex, and race; and it is not less affected by the particular kind of organisation, the mental disposition, and the temperament of the individual.