The hinny, on the other hand, the produce of the stallion and she ass, is essentially a _modified horse_. The ears are those of a horse somewhat lengthened; the mane flowing; the tail bushy, like that of the horse; the skin is finer, like that of the horse, and the color varies also, like the horse; the legs are stronger and the hoofs broad and expanded like those of the horse. In fact, in all these respects it is a horse somewhat modified. The body and barrel, however, of the hinny are flat and narrow, in which it differs from the horse and resembles the she ass. A very curious circumstance pertains to the voice of the mule and the hinny. The mule _brays_, the hinny _neighs_. The why and wherefore of this is a perfect mystery until we come to apply the knowledge afforded us by the law before given. The male gives the locomotive organs, and the muscles are amongst these; the muscles are the organs which modulate the voice of the animal; the mule has the muscular structure of its sire, and brays; the hinny has the muscular structure of its sire, and neighs." In connexion with these examples Mr. Orton refers to a special feature seen equally in the two instances, and which seems at first sight, a departure from the principle laid down by him. It is this, both hybrids, the mule and the hinny take after the male parents in all their external characters save one, which is _size_. In this respect they both follow the female parents, the mule being in all respects a larger and finer animal than its sire, the ass; the hinny being in all respects a smaller and inferior animal to its sire, the horse, the body and barrel of the mule being large and round, those of the hinny being flat and narrow; both animals being in these particulars the reverse of their respective sires, but both resembling their female parents. In explanation of this seeming exception is adduced a well known principle in physiology, which is, that the whole bony framework is moulded in adaptation to the softer structures immediately related to it; the muscles covering it in the case of the limbs; and to the viscera in that of the great cavities which it assists in forming. Accordingly, in perfect accordance with the views above expressed, the _general_ size and form which must be mainly that of the _trunk_, will be determined by the size and character of the viscera of the chest and abdomen, and will therefore accord with that of the female parents by whom the viscera in question are chiefly furnished. The foregoing are the most important of Mr. Orton's statements. He gives, however, numerous additional illustrations from among beasts, birds and fishes, of which we quote only the following: