Buffon's Natural History. Volume 07 (of 10)
by comte de Georges Louis Leclerc Buffon · English · Gutenberg #45820 · 437,251 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Buffon's Natural History. Volume 07 (of 10)
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Buffon's Natural History. Volume 07 (of 10)
Author: comte de Georges Louis Leclerc Buffon
Editor: James Smith Barr
Release date: May 29, 2014 [eBook #45820]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45820
Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Tom Cosmas and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BUFFON'S NATURAL HISTORY. VOLUME 07 (OF 10) ***
Transcriber Note
Text emphasis is denoted as _Italic Text._
_Barr's Buffon._
Buffon's Natural History.
CONTAINING
A THEORY OF THE EARTH,
A GENERAL
_HISTORY OF MAN_,
OF THE BRUTE CREATION, AND OF
VEGETABLES, MINERALS,
_&c. &c._
FROM THE FRENCH.
WITH NOTES BY THE TRANSLATOR.
IN TEN VOLUMES.
VOL. VII.
London:
PRINTED FOR THE PROPRIETOR,
AND SOLD BY H. D. SYMONDS, PATERNOSTER-ROW,
1807.
T. Gillet, Printer, Wild court.
CONTENTS
OF
THE SEVENTH VOLUME.
Of Carnivorous Animals.
_Page_
_Of Tigers_ 1
_Animals of the Old Continent_ 4
_Animals of the New World_ 24
_Animals common to both Continents_ 33
_The Tiger_ 57
_The Panther, Ounce, and Leopard_ 68
_The Jaguar_ 81
_The Cougar_ 87
_The Lynx_ 92
_The Hyæna_ 107
_The Civet and the Zibet_ 117
_The Genet_ 129
_The Black Wolf_ 132
_The Canadian Musk-rat, and the Muscovy Musk-rat_ 133
_The Peccari, or Mexican Hog_ 141
_The Rousette, or Ternat Bat, the Rougette, or Little
Ternat, and the Vampyre_ 149
_The Senegal Bat_ 162
_The Bull-dog Bat_ 163
_The Bearded Bat_ 164
_The striped Bat_ 165
_The Polatouch_ 165
_The Grey Squirrel_ 173
_The Palmist, the Squirrel of Barbary and Switzerland_ 177
_The Ant Eaters_ 181
_The Long and Short-tailed Manis_ 193
_The Armadillo_ 197
_The Three-banded_ 202
_Six-banded_ 205
_Eight-banded_ 207
_Nine-banded_ 208
_Twelve-banded_ 210
_Eighteen-banded_ 212
_The Paca_ 222
_The Opossum_ 229
_The Marmose_ 251
_The Cayopollin_ 253
_The Elephant_ 255
_The Rhinoceros_ 322
_Directions for placing the Plates in the Seventh Volume._
Page 57 Fig. 101, 102.
68 Fig. 107, 108.
77 Fig. 103, 104.
85 Fig. 105, 106.
117 Fig. 109, 110.
118 Fig. 111, 112, 113.
133 Fig. 114, 115, 116.
150 Fig. 117, 118, 119.
165 Fig. 120, 121, 122, 123.
181 Fig. 124, 125, 126.
205 Fig. 127, 128.
222 Fig. 129, 130, 131, 132.
236 Fig. 133, 134.
BUFFON'S
NATURAL HISTORY.
_OF CARNIVOROUS ANIMALS._
OF TIGERS.
As the word Tiger is a generic name, given several animals of different
species, it is proper to begin with distinguishing them from each
other. Leopards and Panthers have often been confounded together, and
are called Tigers by most travellers. The Ounce, a small species of
Panther, which is easily tamed, and used by the Orientals in the chace,
has been taken for the Panther itself, and described as such by the
name of Tiger. The Lynx, and that called the Lion's provider, have
also sometimes received the name of Panther, and sometimes Ounce. In
Africa, and in the southern parts of Asia, these animals are common;
but the real tiger, and the only one which ought to be so called, is
scarce, was little known by the ancients, and is badly described by the
moderns. Aristotle does not mention him; and Pliny merely speaks of him
as an animal of prodigious velocity; _tremendæ velocitatis animal_;[A]
adding, that he was a much more scarce animal than the Panther, since
Augustus presented the first to the Romans at the dedication of the
theatre of Marcellus, while so early as the time of Scaurus, this Ædile
sent 150 panthers, and afterwards 400 were given by Pompey, and 420
by Augustus, to the public shews at Rome. Pliny, however, gives no
description of the tiger, or any of its characteristics. Oppian and
Solinus appear to be the first who observed that the tiger is marked
with long streaks, and the panther with round spots. This, indeed, is
one of the characteristics which distinguishes the true tiger from a
number of animals that have been so called. Strabo, in speaking of
the real tiger, gives Megasthenes as his authority, for saying that
in India there are tigers twice as large as the lion. The tiger then
stands described by the ancients as an animal that is fierce and
swift, marked with long stripes, and exceeding the lion in size; nor
has Gesner, nor the other modern naturalists, who have treated of the
tiger, added any thing to these observations of the ancients.
[Footnote A: Pliny Nat. Hist. lib. viii. cap. xviii.]
In the French language all those skins of which the hair is short, and
are marked with round and distinct spots, are called tiger-skins, and
travellers sharing in this error, have called all animals so marked
by the general name of tigers; even the academy of sciences have been
borne away by this torrent, and have adopted the appellation to all,
although by dissection they found them materially different.
The most general cause, as we intimated in the article of the lion,
of these ambiguous terms in Natural History, arose from the necessity
of giving names to the unknown productions of the New World, and thus
the animals were called after such of the old continent to whom they
had the smallest resemblance. From the general denomination of tiger
to every animal whose skin was spotted, instead of one species of that
name, we now have nine or ten, and consequently the history of these
animals is exceedingly embarrassed, writers have applied to one species
what ought to have been ascribed to another.
To dispel the confusion which necessarily results from these erroneous
denominations, particularly among those which have been commonly
called tigers, I have resolved to give a comparative enumeration of
quadrupeds, in which I shall distinguish, 1. Those which are peculiar
to the old continent, and were not found in America when first
discovered. 2. Those which are natives of the new continent, and were
unknown in the old. 3. Those which existing alike in both continents,
without having been carried from one to the other by man, may be
considered as common to both. For which purpose it has been necessary
to collect and arrange the scattered accounts given by the historians
of America, and those who first visited this continent as travellers.
ANIMALS OF THE OLD CONTINENT.
As the largest animals are the best known, and about which there is
the least uncertainty, in this enumeration they shall follow nearly
according to their size.
Elephants belong to the Old World; the largest are found in Asia, and
the smallest in Africa. They are natives of the hottest climates, and,
though they will live, they cannot multiply in temperate ones; they
do not propagate even in their own countries after they are deprived
of their liberty. Though confined to the southern parts of the old
continent their species is numerous. It is unknown in America, nor is
there any animal there that can be compared to it in size and figure.
The same remark applies to the Rhinoceros, which is less numerous than
the elephant; he is confined to the desarts of Africa, and the forests
of southern Asia; nor has America any animal that resembles him.
The Hippopotamus inhabits the banks of the large rivers of India and
Africa, and is less numerous than the Rhinoceros. It is not found in
America, nor even in the temperate climates of the Old Continent.
The Camel and Dromedary, so apparently similar, yet in reality so
dissimilar, are very common in Asia and Arabia, and in all the eastern
parts of the ancient continent. The name of camel has been given to
the Lama and Pacos of Peru, which are so different from the camel as
by some to have been called _sheep_, and by others _camels_ of Peru;
though the pacos has nothing in common with the European sheep but the
wool, and the lama resembles the camel only by the length of its neck.
The Spaniards formerly carried camels to Peru; they left them first
at the Canaries, whence they afterwards transported them to America;
but the climate of the new world does not seem favourable to them, for
though they produced, their numbers have always remained very small.
The _Giraffe_ or _Camelopard_, an animal remarkable for its height,
and the length of its neck and fore legs, is a native of Africa,
particularly Ethiopia, and has never spread beyond the tropics in the
temperate climates of the old continent.
In the preceding article we have seen that the lion exists not in
America, and that the puma of Peru is an animal of a different species;
and we shall now find that the tiger and panther belong also to the old
continent, and that the animals of South America, to whom those names
have been applied, are also different. The real tiger is a terrible
animal, and more, perhaps, to be dreaded than the lion himself. His
ferocity is beyond comparison; but an idea of his strength may be drawn
from his size; he is generally from four to five feet high, and from
nine to fourteen in length, without including his tail; his skin is not
covered with round spots, but with black stripes upon a yellow ground,
which extend across the body, and form rings from one end of the tail
to the other. These characteristics alone are sufficient to distinguish
him from all the animals of prey belonging to the new continent, as
the largest of them scarcely ever exceed the size of our mastiffs. The
leopard and panther of Africa and Asia, though much smaller than the
tiger, are larger than the rapacious animals of South America. Pliny,
whose testimony cannot be doubted (since panthers were daily exposed,
in his time, at the theatres in Rome), indicates their essential
characteristics, by saying, their hair is whitish, diversified
throughout with black spots, like eyes, and that the only difference
between the male and female were the superior whiteness of her hair.
The American animals, which have been called tigers, have a greater
resemblance to the panther, and yet their difference from that species
is very evident. The first is the _Jaguara_, or _Janowra_, a native
of Guiana, Brasil, and other parts of South America. Ray, with some
propriety, calls the animal the Pard, or Brasilian lynx. The Portuguese
call him Ounce, because they had first, by corruption, given that name
to the lynx, and afterwards to the small panther of India; and the
French, without his having the smallest affinity, have called him
tiger. He differs from the panther in size, in the position and figure
of the spots, in the colour and length of the hair, which is frizzled
when young, and never so straight as that of the panther, differing
also in disposition, being more savage, and cannot be tamed; still,
however, the jaguar of Brasil resembles the panther more than any other
animal of the new world. The second we call Cougar, by contracting the
Brasilian name _cougouacou-ara_, and which the French, with still less
propriety, have called the Red Tiger. From the real tiger it differs
in all, and from the panther in most respects, its hair being red, and
without spots; and in the form of its head, and length of his muzzle,
it differs also from them both. A third species, which has also been
called tiger, though equally remote, is the _Jaguarette_, which is
nearly of the size of the jaguar, and resembles him in natural habits,
but differs in some exterior characters. He has been called black
tiger, because his hair is black, interspersed with spots of a still
blacker hue. Besides these three species, and perhaps a fourth, which
is smaller, that have been named after the tiger, there is another
American animal, which appears to have a greater right to it, namely,
the _Cat-pard_, or mountain cat, which resembles both the cat and the
panther. Though smaller than either of the above three animals, it is
larger than the wild cat, which it resembles in figure, but its tail is
much shorter, and it differs also by having its hair diversified with
black spots, long upon the back and round upon the belly. These four
American animals have, therefore, very improperly been named tigers.
The cougar and cat-pard I have seen alive, and am convinced they are
of different species, and still more so from the tiger or panther; and
as for the puma and jaguar, it is evident, from the testimony of those
who have seen them, that the former is not a lion, nor the latter a
tiger, and therefore, without scruple, we may pronounce, that neither
the lion, tiger, nor even the panther, exist in America, any more than
the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, camel, or the camelopard. All
these species require a hot climate for propagation, and as none of
them exist in the northern regions, it is impossible they should have
had any communication with America. This general fact is too important
not to be supported by every proof; we shall, therefore, continue our
comparative enumeration of the animals of the old continent with those
of the new.
It is generally known, that upon horses being first transported into
America they struck the natives with surprise and terror; and that
this animal has thriven and multiplied so fast, as to have become
almost as numerous there now as it is in Europe. It is the same also
with the ass, which has thriven equally in these warm climates, and
from which mules have been produced, that are more serviceable than
the lamas for carrying heavy loads over the mountainous parts of Chili
and Peru. The Zebra is also an animal of the old continent, and which,
perhaps, has never been even seen in the new; it seems to require a
particular climate, and is found only in that part of Africa which lies
between the Equator and the Cape of Good Hope.
Oxen were unknown in the islands and on the continent of South America.
Soon after the discovery of these countries, the Spaniards transported
bulls and cows to them from Europe. In 1550 oxen were employed, for
the first time, in tilling the ground in the valley of Cusco. On the
continent these animals multiplied prodigiously, as well as in the
islands of St. Domingo, Cuba, Barlovento, &c. and in many places
they even became wild. The species of horned cattle found at Mexico,
Louisiana, &c. which is called the _wild ox_ or Bison, is not produced
from the European oxen. The bison existed in America before our race
was carried thither; and from the latter he is so different as to
authorize the opinion of his being a different species. He has a rise
between his shoulders, his hair is softer than wool, is longer before
than behind, is curled upon the neck and along the spine of the back;
he is of a brown colour, and faintly marked with some whitish spots; he
has also short legs, which, like the head and neck, are covered with
long hair; and the male has a long tail with a tuft of hair at the end,
like that of the lion. These differences seem to be sufficient grounds
for considering the ox and bison of different species, yet I will not
pretend to determine they are so, because the only characteristic which
identifies animals to be of the same species, is their propagating
and producing similar individuals, and which fact has never been
determined between the bison and the oxen of Europe. M. de la Nux, a
member of the royal council of the isle of Bourbon, has favoured me
with a letter, in which he says, the hunched-back ox of that island
propagates with the common horned cattle; and of great advantage would
it be, if persons who live in remote countries would follow the example
of this gentleman, in making experimental observations upon animals.
Nothing could be more easy than for the inhabitants of Louisiana, to
try if the American bison would copulate with the European cow. It
is probable they would produce together, and in that case it would
be ascertained that the European ox, the hunched-backed species of
the isle of Bourbon, the East India bull and American bison, form
only one species. M. de la Nux proved by experiments, that the hunch
is not an essential characteristic, since it disappeared after a few
generations; and I have myself discovered that the protuberance upon a
camel's back, which, though as in the bison, is very common, is not a
constant characteristic, and is probably owing to the healthful state
of the body, as I once saw a sickly camel which had not the smallest
appearance of a lump. As to the other difference, namely, the hair
being more long and soft, that may be entirely owing to the influence
of the climate, as is the case with goats, hares, and rabbits. With
some appearance of probability, it may be supposed, (especially if the
American bison produces with the European cow) that our oxen may have
found a passage over the northern districts to those of North America,
and having afterwards advanced into the temperate regions of this New
World, they received the impressions of the climate, and in time became
bisons. But till the essential fact of their producing together be
fully confirmed, I think it right to conclude that our oxen belong to
the old continent, and existed not in America before they were carried
thither.
To sheep America has no pretensions; they were transported from Europe,
and have thriven both in the warm and temperate climates; but, however
prolific, they are commonly more meagre, and their flesh less juicy and
tender than those in Europe. Brasil seems to be the most favourable to
them, as it is there alone that they are found loaded with fat. Guinea
sheep, as well as European, have been transported to Jamaica, and they
have prospered equally well. These two species belong solely to the old
continent. It is also the same with goats, and those we now meet with
in America in such great numbers, all originated from goats introduced
from Europe. The latter has not, however, multiplied so fast at Brasil
as the sheep. When the Spaniards first carried goats to Peru they were
so rare as to be sold for 110 ducats a piece; but afterwards they
multiplied so prodigiously as to be held of little value but for their
skins; they produce there from three to five kids at a time, while in
Europe they seldom have more than one or two. In all the islands they
are equally numerous as on the continent. The Spaniards transported
them even into the islands of the South Sea; and in the island of Juan
Fernandez their increase became prodigious. But proving a supply of
provisions to the free-booters who afterwards infested those parts, the
Spaniards resolved to extirpate them, and for that purpose put dogs
upon the island, who, multiplying in their turn, not only destroyed all
the goats in the accessible parts, but became so fierce as to attack
even men.
The hogs which were transported from Europe to America succeeded
better, and multiplied faster, than the sheep or goat. The first
swine, according to Garcilasso, sold still dearer than the first
goats. Piso says the flesh of the ox and sheep is not so good at
Brasil as in Europe, but that of the hog, which multiplies very fast,
is better; and Laet, in his History of the New World, affirms that
it is preferable at St. Domingo, to what it is in Europe. In general
it may be remarked, that of all domestic animals which have been
carried from Europe to America, the hog has thriven the best and most
universally. In Canada and in Brasil, which includes the warmest and
coldest climates of the new world, hogs multiply, and their flesh is
equally good; while the goat, on the contrary, multiplies in warm and
temperate climates only, and cannot maintain its species in Canada
without continual supplies. The ass multiplies in Brasil, Peru, &c. but
not in Canada, where neither mules nor asses are to be seen, although
numbers of the latter have been transported thither in couples. Horses
have multiplied nearly as much in the hot as in the cold countries
throughout America; but have diminished in size, a circumstance which
is common to all animals transported from Europe to America; and what
is still more singular, all the native animals of America are much
smaller in general than those of the old continent. Nature in their
formation seems to have adopted a smaller scale, and to have formed man
alone in the same mould. But to proceed in our enumeration:--The hog,
then, is not a native of America, but was carried thither; and he has
not only increased in a domestic state but has even become wild, and
multiplied in the woods without the assistance of man. A species of hog
has also been transported from Guinea to Brasil, which has likewise
multiplied; it is much smaller, and seems to form a distinct species
from the European hog; for although the climate of Brasil is favourable
to every kind of propagation, these animals have never been known to
intermingle.
Dogs, whose races are so varied, and so numerously diffused, were
not found in America, unless in a few rude resemblances, which it is
difficult to compare with the species at large. At St. Domingo, says
Garcilasso, there were little animals called _gosques_, not unlike
little dogs; but there were no dogs like those of Europe. He adds, that
the latter, on being transported to Cuba and St. Domingo, had become
wild, and diminished the number of cattle which had become wild also;
that they committed their devastations in troops of ten or twelve, and
were more destructive than wolves. According to Joseph Acosta, there
were no real dogs in the West Indies, but only an animal resembling
small dogs, called by the Peruvians _alcos_, which attach themselves
to their masters, and seem to have nearly the same dispositions as the
dog. If we may believe Father Charlevoix, who quotes no authority,
"The _goschis_ of St. Domingo were little mute dogs, which served
as an amusement to the ladies, and were also employed in the chace
of other animals. Their flesh was good for eating, and they were of
great benefit to the Spaniards during the first famines, which these
people experienced, so that they would have been exhausted, had there
not been numbers of them afterwards brought from the continent. Of
this animal there were several sorts; of some the hair was straight,
others had their bodies covered with a wool exceedingly soft; but the
greatest number had only a thin covering of tender down. In colours
they exceeded the varieties in the European dogs, forming an assemblage
of all colours, the most lively not excepted."
If this species of the goschis ever existed, especially as described
by Father Charlevoix, why have other authors never mentioned it? why
does it no longer exist? or if in existence, by what means has it lost
all its beautiful peculiarities? It is most likely that the goschis of
Charlevoix, and of which he never found the name but in Father Pers, is
the gosques of Garcilasso; and it is also probable that these gosques
of St. Domingo, and the alcos of Peru, are the same animal; for certain
it is, that of all American animals this has the most affinity to the
European dog. Several authors have considered it as a real dog; and
Laet expressly says, that when the West Indies were discovered they in
St. Domingo employed a small dog in hunting, but which was absolutely
dumb. We observed, in the history of the dog, that he loses the faculty
of barking in hot countries, but instead thereof they had a kind
of howl, and are not like these American animals, perfectly mute.
European dogs have thriven equally well in the hot and cold climates
of America, and of all animals they are held in the highest estimation
by the savages; but they have undergone essential changes, for in hot
countries they have lost their voice, in cold ones they have decreased
in size, and in general their ears have become straight. Thus they
have degenerated, or rather returned to their primitive species, the
shepherd's dog, whose ears are erect, and who barks the least. From
whence we may conclude, that the dog belongs to the old continent where
their nature has been developed in the temperate regions only, and
where they appear to have been varied and brought to perfection by the
care of man, for in all uncivilized countries, and in very hot or cold
climates they are ugly, small, and almost mute.
The Hyæna, which is nearly the size of the wolf, was known to the
ancients, and I have myself seen a living one. It is remarkable for
having an opening between the anus and tail, like the badger, and from
which issues a humour that has a strong smell; also for a long bristly
mane which runs along its neck; and for a voracity which prompts it to
scrape up graves and devour the most putrid bodies.
This horrid animal is only to be found in Arabia, and other southern
provinces of Asia; it does not exist in Europe and has never been found
in the New World.
The jackall, which of all animals not excepting the wolf makes the
nearest approach to the dog though differing in every essential
characteristic, is very common in Armenia and Turkey, and is very
numerous in several other provinces of Asia and Africa; but it is
absolutely unknown in the new world. It is about the size of the fox,
and of a very brilliant yellow; this animal has not extended to Europe,
nor even the northern parts of Asia.
The Genet, being a native of Spain, would doubtless have been noticed
had he been found in America, but that not being the case, we may
consider him as peculiar to the old continent; he inhabits the southern
parts of Europe, and those of Asia under the same latitude.
Though it has been said the Civet was found in New Spain, I am of
opinion it was not the African, or Indian Civet, which yields the musk
that is mixed and prepared with that of the animal called the Hiam of
China; this civet I conceive to belong to the southern part of the old
continent, has never extended to the north, and consequently would not
have found a passage to the New World.
Cats as well as dogs were entire strangers to the New Continent, and
though I formerly mentioned that a huntsman had taken to Columbus a
cat which he had killed in the woods of America, I am now convinced
that the species did not then exist there. I was then less aware of
the abuses which had been made in names, and I acknowledge I am not
yet sufficiently acquainted with animals to distinguish them with
precision in the fictitious and misapplied denominations given them
by travellers. Nor is this to be wondered at, since the nomenclators,
whose researches were directed to this object, have rendered it more
dark and intricate by their arbitrary names and arrangements. To the
natural propensity of comparing things which we see for the first
time, with those already known, and the almost insuperable difficulty
of pronouncing the American names being added, we are to impute this
misapplication of names which have since been productive of so many
errors. It is much more easy, for example, to call a new animal, a
_wild boar_, than to pronounce its name at Mexico, _quab-coya-melt_; to
call another _American fox_, than to retain its Brasilian appellation,
_tamandua-guacu_; to give the name of _Peruvian sheep_, or _camel_, to
those animals which in the language of Peru are called _pelon ichiath
oquitli_. It is the same with almost all the other animals of the New
World, whose names were so strange and barbarous to the Europeans, that
they endeavoured to apply others to them, from the resemblance they had
to those of the old continent, but they were often from affinities too
remote to justify the application. Five or six species of small animals
were named hares, or rabbits, merely because their flesh was palatable
food. They called _cow_ and _elk_ an animal without horns, although
it had no affinity to either, except a small resemblance in the form
of the body. But it is unnecessary at present to dwell upon the false
denominations which have been applied to the animals of America,
because I shall endeavour to point out and correct them when we come to
treat of each of those animals in particular.
We find, then, that all our domestic animals, and the largest animals
of Asia and Africa were unknown in the New World; and the same remark
extends to several of the less considerable species, of which we shall
now proceed to make a cursory mention.
The gazelles, of which there are various kinds, and of which some
belong to Arabia, others to the East Indies, and some to Africa,
all require a hot climate to subsist and multiply, they therefore
never extended to the northern climates, so as to obtain a passage
to America; it appears, indeed, that the African gazelle, and which
Hernandes, in his History of Mexico calls _algazel ex Aphrica_ must
have been transported thither. The animal of New Spain, which the same
author calls _temamaçame_, Seba _cervus_, Klein _tragulus_, and Brisson
the gazelle of New Spain, appears to be a different species to any on
the old continent.
It is natural to conclude, that the Chamois Goat, which delights in
the snow of the Alps, would not be afraid of the icy regions of the
north, and thence might have passed to America, but no such animal
is found there. This animal requires not only a particular climate,
but a particular situation. He is attached to the tops of the Alpine,
Pyrenean, and other lofty mountains, and far from being scattered over
distant countries, he never descends even to the plains at the bottom
of his hills; but in this he is not singular, as the marmot, wild goat,
bear, and lynx, are also mountain animals, and very rarely found in the
plains.
The buffalo is a native of hot countries, and has been rendered
domestic in Italy; he resembles less than the ox, the American bison,
and is unknown in the new continent. The wild goat is found on the
tops of the highest mountains of Europe and Asia, but was never seen
on the Cordeliers. The Musk-animal, which is nearly the size of a
fallow-deer, inhabits only a few particular countries of China and
Eastern Tartary. The little Guinea Deer, as it is called, seems also
confined to the provinces of Africa and the East Indies. The Rabbit,
which comes originally from Spain, and has been diffused over all the
temperate climates of Europe, did not exist in America; for the animals
of that continent which are so called, are of a different species, and
all the real ones were transported thither from Europe. The Ferret,
brought from Africa to Europe, was unknown in America; as were also our
rats and mice, which having been carried there in European ships, have
since multiplied prodigiously.
The following then are nearly all the animals of the old continent,
namely, the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, camel, dromedary,
giraffe, lion, tiger, panther, horse, ass, zebra, ox, buffalo, sheep,
goat, hog, dog, hyæna, jackall, genet, civet, cat, gazelle, chamois
goat, wild goat, Guinea deer, rabbit, ferret, rat, mouse, loir, lerot,
marmot, ichneumon, badger, sable, ermine, jerboa, the maki, and several
species of monkeys, none of which were found in America on the first
arrival of the Europeans, and which consequently are peculiar to the
Old World, as we shall endeavour to prove in the particular history of
each animal.
ANIMALS OF THE NEW WORLD.
The animals of the New World were not more known to the Europeans, than
were our animals to the Americans. The Peruvians and Mexicans were the
only people on the new continent, which were half civilized. The latter
had no domestic animals; and those of the former consisted of the lama,
the pacos, and the alco, a small animal which was domestic in the
house like our little dogs. The pacos and the lama, like the chamois
goat, live only on the highest mountains, and are found on those of
Peru, Chili, and New Spain. Though they had become domestic among the
Peruvians, and consequently spread over the neighbouring countries,
their multiplication was not abundant, and has even decreased in their
native places, since the introduction of European cattle, which have
succeeded astonishingly in all the southern countries of the American
continent.
It appears singular that in a world, occupied almost entirely by
savages, whose manners somewhat resembled those of the brutes, there
should be no connection, no society existing between them and the
animals by which they were surrounded; and this was absolutely the
case, for there were no domestic animals, excepting where the people
were in some degree civilized. Does not this prove that man, in a
savage state, is nothing more than a species of animal, incapable of
ruling others; and possessing only individual faculties, employs them
for procuring his subsistence, and providing for his security, by
attacking the weak, and avoiding the strong, but without entertaining
any idea of real power, or endeavouring to reduce them to subjection?
Every nation, even those which are but just emerging from barbarism,
has its domestic animals. With us the horse, the ass, the ox, the
sheep, the goat, the hog, the dog, and the cat; in Italy the buffalo;
in Lapland the rein-deer; in Peru the lama, the pacos, and the alco; in
the eastern countries, the dromedary, the camel, and various species of
oxen, sheep, and goats; in the southern ones the elephant; all these
animals have been reduced to servitude, or admitted into society;
while the savage, hardly desirous of the society of his female, either
fears or disdains that of other animals. Of these species, rendered
domestic, it is true, not one existed in America; but if the savages,
with whom it was peopled, had anciently united, and had communicated
to each other the mutual aids of society, they would have rendered
subservient the greatest part of the animals of that country, most of
them being mild, docile, and timid, few mischievous, and scarcely any
formidable. Their liberty, therefore, has been preserved solely from
the weakness of man, who has little or no power without the aid of
society, upon which even the multiplication of his species depends.
The immense territories of the new world were but thinly inhabited;
and, I believe it may be asserted, that on its first discovery, it
contained not more than half the number of people that may now be
reckoned in Europe. This scarcity of men allowed every other animal to
multiply in abundance; every thing was favourable to their increase,
and the number of individuals of each species was immense; but the
number of species were comparatively few, and did not amount to more
than a fourth, or a third of those of the old continent. If we reckon
200 species of animals in the known world we shall find that more
than 130 of them belonged to the old continent, and less than 70 to
the new; and if we except the species common to both continents, that
is, such as by their natures are capable of enduring the rigours of
the north, and might have passed from one to the other, there will
not remain above forty species peculiar to, and natives of, America.
Animated nature, therefore, is in this portion of the globe less
active, less varied, and even less vigorous; for by the enumeration of
the American animals we shall perceive, that not only the number of
species is smaller, but that in general they are inferior in size to
those of the old continent; not one animal throughout America can be
compared to the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, dromedary, buffalo,
tiger, lion, &c. The Tapir of Brasil is the largest of all the South
American animals, and this elephant of the new world exceeds not the
size of a very small mule, or a calf at six months old; with both which
animals he has been compared, although he does not resemble either.
The Lama is not so big as the tapir, and appears large only from the
length of his neck and legs; and the Pacos is much smaller still. The
Cabiai, which, next to the tapir, is the largest of the South American
animals, is not bigger than a common-sized hog; he differs as much as
any of the preceding from all the animals of the old continent; for
although he has been called the water-hog, he has essentially different
characteristics from that animal. The Tajacou is smaller than the
cabiai, and has a strong external resemblance to the hog, but differs
greatly in his internal conformation. Neither the tajacou, cabiai,
nor the tapir, are to be found in any part of the old continent; and
the same may be said of the _Tamanduacuacu_, or _Ouariri_, and of the
_Ouatiriou_, which we have called Ant-eaters. These last animals, the
largest of which is below mediocrity, seem confined to the regions of
South America. They are remarkable in having no teeth, their tongue
is long and cylindrical, and their mouth is so small that they can
neither bite nor hardly take hold of any thing; they can only procure
subsistence by putting out their long tongue in the way of the ants,
and drawing it in when loaded with them. The sloth, which is called
_ai_, or _hai_, by the natives of Brasil, on account of the plaintive
cry of _ai_, which it continually sends forth, seems likewise to
be confined to the new continent. It is smaller than either of the
preceding ones, being not more than two feet long, and is scarcely so
quick in his motion as the turtle; it has but three claws on each foot,
its fore legs are longer than its hind ones, it has a very short tail,
and no ears. Besides, the sloth and armadillo are the only quadrupeds,
which have neither incisive nor canine teeth, but whose grinders are
cylindrical, and round at the extremities, nearly like those of some
cetaceous animals.
The Curiacou of Guiana is an animal of the nature and size of our
largest roe-bucks; the male has horns, which he sheds every year, but
the female has none. At Cayenne it is called the Hind of the Woods.
There is another species, called the little cariacou, or hind of the
fens, which is considerably smaller than the former, and the male
has no horns. From the resemblance of the names I suspected that
the cariacou of Cayenne might be the caguacu, or cougouacou-ara, of
Brasil, and comparing the accounts given by Piso and Marcgrave of the
latter with the cariacou I had alive, I was persuaded they were the
same animal, yet so different from our roe-buck as to justify our
considering them distinct species.
The tapir, cabiai, tajacou, ant-eater, sloth, cariacou, lama, pacos,
bison, puma, juguar, coujuar, juguarat, and the mountain-cat, &c. are
therefore the largest animals of the new continent. The middle-sized
and small ones are the cuandus, or gouandous, agouti, coati, paca,
opossum, cavies, and armadillos; all which I believe are peculiar to
the new world, although our latest nomenclators speak of two other
species of armadillos, one in the East Indies, and the other in Africa;
but we have only the testimony of the author of the description of
Seba's cabinet for their existence, and that authority is insufficient
to confirm the fact, for misnomers frequently happen in the collections
of natural objects. An animal, for example, is purchased under the name
of a Ternat, or American bat, and another under that of the East India
Armadillo; they are then announced by those names in a descriptive
catalogue, and are adopted by our nomenclators; but when examined more
closely the American bat proves to be one of our own country, and so
may the Indian or African armadillo be merely an armadillo of America.
Hitherto we have not spoken of Apes, their history requiring a
particular discussion. As the word _Ape_ is a generic term applied to
a number of species, it is not surprising that it should be said they
abound in the southern parts of both continents; but it is for us here
to enquire whether the apes of Asia and Africa be the same animals as
those so called in America, and whether from among more than thirty
species of apes, which I have examined alive, one of them is alike
common to both continents.
The Satyr, Ourang-outang, or Man of the Woods, as it is
indiscriminately termed, seems to differ less from man than from the
ape, and is only to be found in Africa or the south of Asia. The
Gibbon, whose fore legs, or arms, are as long as the whole body,
even the hind legs included, is a native of the East Indies alone.
Neither of these have tails. The ape, properly so termed, whose hair
is greenish, with a small intermixture of yellow, has no tail, belongs
to Africa, and a few other parts of the old continent, but is not to
be found in the new. It is the same also with the Cynocephali-apes, of
which there are two or three species; neither of them having any tails,
at least they are so short as scarcely to be perceivable. All apes
which are without tails, and whose muzzles, from being short, bear a
strong resemblance to the face of man, are real apes; and the species
above-mentioned are all natives of the old continent, and unknown in
the new; from whence we may pronounce that there are no real apes in
America.
The Baboon, an animal larger than the dog, and whose body is pursed up
like that of the hyæna, is exceedingly different from those we have
noticed, and has a short tail: it is equally endowed with inclination
and powers for mischief, and is only to be met with in the desarts of
the southern parts of the old continent.
Besides these without tails, or with very short ones, (which all belong
to the old continent) almost all the large ones with long tails, are
peculiar to Africa. There are few even of the middling size in America,
but those called little long-tailed monkeys are very numerous, of which
there are several species; and when we give the particular history of
these animals, it will appear the American monkeys differ very much
from the apes of Asia and Africa. The Maki, of which there are three or
four species, has a near resemblance to the monkeys with long tails,
but is another animal, and peculiar also to the old continent. All the
animals, therefore, of Asia and Africa, which are known by the name of
apes, are equally as strange in America as the rhinoceros or tiger; and
the more we investigate this subject, the more we shall be convinced
that the animals of the southern parts of one continent did not exist
in the others and the few found in them must have been carried thither
by men. Between the coasts of Brasil and Guinea, there are 500 leagues
of sea; and between those of the East Indies and Peru, the distance
exceeds 2000 leagues: It appears, therefore, that all those animals
which from their nature are incapable of supporting cold climates, or,
if supporting, cannot propagate therein, are confined on two or three
sides by seas they cannot cross, and on the other by lands so cold they
cannot live in them. At this one general fact, then, however singular
it may at first appear, our wonder ought to cease, namely, that not one
of the animals of the torrid zone of one continent, are natives of the
torrid zone of the other.
ANIMALS COMMON TO BOTH CONTINENTS.
By the preceding enumeration it appears, that not only the quadrupeds
of the hot climates of Asia and Africa, but many of those in the
temperate climates of Europe, are strangers in America; but we find
many there of such as can support cold and propagate their species in
the regions of the north; and though there is an evident difference
in them they cannot but be considered as the same animals; and this
induces us to believe, they formerly passed from one continent to the
other by lands still unknown, or possibly long since buried by the
waves. Of the contiguity of the two northern provinces, the proof thus
drawn from Natural History is a stronger confirmation than all the
conjectures of speculative Geography.
The Bears of the Illinois, of Louisiana, &c. seem to be the same with
ours; the former being only smaller and blacker. The stag of Canada,
though smaller than ours, differs only in the superior loftiness of
his horns, number of antlers, and length of his tail. The roe-buck,
found in the south of Canada, and in Louisiana, is also smaller and has
a longer tail than that of Europe. The Orignal is the same animal as
the Elk, but not so large. The rein-deer of Lapland, the fallow-deer
of Greenland, and the Caribou of Canada, appear to be one and the
same animal. Brisson has indeed classed the latter with the _cervus
Burgundicus_ of Johnston, but which animal remains unknown, and
possibly received that name from accident or caprice.
The hares, squirrels, hedge-hogs, otters, marmots, rats, shrew-mice,
and the moles, are species which may be considered as common to both
continents; though there is not one perfectly similar in America, to
what it is in Europe; and it is very difficult, if not impossible,
to pronounce whether they are in reality different species, or mere
varieties rendered permanent by the influence of the climate.
The Beavers of Europe seem to be the same as those of Canada. These
animals prefer cold countries, but can subsist and propagate in
temperate ones. In the islands of the Rhone in France, there still
remain a few of the number which formerly subsisted there; and
they seem more desirous of avoiding a too populous than a too warm
country. They never form their societies but in desarts remote from
the dwellings of men; and even in Canada, which can be considered as
little more than a vast desart, they have retired far from any human
habitation. The Wolf and Fox are common to both continents. They are
met with in all parts of North America, and of both species; there are
some entirely black. Though the Weasel and Ermine frequent the cold
countries of Europe, they are very rare in America, which is not the
case with the pine-weasel, marten, and pole-cat. The Pine-weasel of
North America seems to be the same with that of the northern parts of
Europe. The Vison of Canada has a strong resemblance to our Marten; and
the streaked Pole-cat of North America, is perhaps a mere variety of
the European kind. The Lynx of America is, to all appearance, the same
with that in Europe. Though it prefers cold countries, it lives and
multiplies in temperate ones, and is seldom seen but in forests and on
mountains. The Seal, or sea-calf, seems to be confined to the northern
regions, and is alike to be found on the coasts of Europe and North
America.
Such, with a few exceptions, are all the animals common to the old
and new world; and from this number, inconsiderable as it is, we
ought, perhaps, to deduct one third, whose species, though similar in
appearance, may be different in reality. But admitting the identity
of species, those common to both continents are very small in number,
compared with those peculiar to each; and it is also evident, that such
only as can bear cold, and can multiply in these climates, as well as
in warm ones, are to be found in both. From which there cannot remain a
doubt but that the two continents are, or have been contiguous towards
the north, and that the animals common to both, found a passage over
lands which at present are to us unknown. There is reason to believe,
from the discoveries made by the Russians to the north of Kamtschatka,
that the lands of Asia and America are contiguous, while the north of
Europe appears always to have been separated from the latter by seas
too considerable for any quadruped to have crossed; nevertheless, the
animals of North America have a stronger resemblance to those of the
northern parts of Europe than to those of the north of Asia. Neither
the Argali, Sable, Mole of Siberia, nor Chinese Musk, are to be found
at Hudson's Bay, or any other north-west part of the new continent;
while in the north-east parts we not only find the animals common to
the north of Europe and Asia, but even such as appear to be peculiar to
Europe. But it must be acknowledged, that the north-east parts of Asia
are so little known that we cannot attempt to affirm, with certainty,
whether the animals of the north of Europe are to be found there or not.
We have already remarked, as a striking singularity, that the animals
in the southern provinces of the new continent are small, in comparison
with those of the warm regions of the old; the elephant, &c. of the
latter being some of them eight and ten times larger than the tapir,
&c. of the former. And this general fact, as to size, is further
corroborated, by all the animals which have been transported from
Europe having become less, and also those common to both continents
being much smaller in America than those of Europe. In this new world,
then, there must be something in the combination of the elements, and
other physical causes, which opposes the aggrandisement of animated
nature; there must be obstacles to the development, and perhaps to
the formation of the principles of life. Under this sky, and on this
vacant land, even those which, from the benign influence of other
climates, had received their full form and complete extension, lose
both, and become shrivelled and diminished. These extensive regions
were thinly inhabited by a few wandering savages, who, instead of
acting as masters, had no authority in it: for they had no controul
over either animals or elements; they had neither subjected the
waves nor directed the motions of rivers, nor even cultivated the
earth around them; they were themselves nothing more than animals
of the first rank, mere automatons, incapable of correcting Nature,
or seconding her intentions. Nature, indeed, had treated them more
as a stepmother than as an indulgent parent, by denying to them the
sentiment of love, and the eager desire to propagate their species.
The American savage, it is true, is little less in stature than other
men, yet that is not sufficient to form an exception to the general
remark--that all animated nature is comparatively diminutive in the
new continent. In the savage the organs of generation are small and
feeble; he has no hair, no beard, no ardour for the female; though
more nimble than the European, from being habituated to running, he is
not so strong; possessed of less sensibility, yet he is more timid and
dastardly; he has no vivacity, no activity of soul, and that of the
body is less a voluntary exercise than a necessary action occasioned
by want. Satisfy his hunger and thirst and you annihilate the active
principle of all his motions; and he will remain for days together in
a state of stupid inactivity[B]. Needless is it to search further into
the cause for the dispersed life of savages, and their aversion to
society. Nature has withheld from them the most precious spark of her
torch; they have no ardour for the female, and consequently no love for
their fellow-creatures. Strangers to an attachment the most lively and
tender, their other kindred sensations are cold and languid: to their
parents and children they are little more than indifferent; with them
the bands of the most intimate of all society, are feeble, nor is there
the smallest connection between one family and another; of course they
have no social state among them; cold in temperament, their manners are
cruel, their women they treat as drudges born to labour, or rather as
beasts of burthen, whom they load with all the produce of the chace,
and whom they oblige, without pity or gratitude, to perform offices
repugnant to their natures, and frequently beyond their strength.
They have few children, and to those they pay little attention. The
whole arises from one cause; they are indifferent because they are
weak, and this indifference to the female is the original stain which
defaces nature, prevents her from expanding, and, while it destroys
the seeds of life, strikes at the root of society. Man, therefore,
forms no exception; for Nature, by retrenching the faculty of love,
has diminished him more than any other animal. Before we examine the
causes of this general effect, it must be acknowledged, that although
Nature has reduced all the quadrupeds of the new world, yet she has
preserved the size of reptiles, and enlarged that of insects; for
although there are larger lizards and larger serpents at Senegal than
in South America, yet in these animals the difference is not near so
great as in the quadrupeds; the largest serpent at Senegal is not
twice as large as the great adder of Cayenne, whereas the elephant is
ten times as big as the tapir, which is the largest animal of South
America. In no part are the insect tribes so large as in South America.
At Cayenne, the spiders, caterpillars, and butterflies, surpass all
the insects of the old continent, not only as to size, but in richness
of colours, delicacy of shades, variety of forms, number of species,
and the prodigious multiplication of individuals. The toads, frogs,
and other creatures of this kind, are also very large in America. Of
the birds and fish we shall say nothing; for since they possess the
power of migrating from one continent to the other, it would be almost
impossible to distinguish which properly belongs to either, but insects
and reptiles, like quadrupeds, are confined nearly to the spot in
which they came into existence.
[Footnote B: Mr. Vaillant says, that the Hottentots will sleep for
two or three days together, either from hunger or excess in eating;
for, when hungry, indolence has suggested to them the expedient of
sleeping instead of the labour of seeking for food, and that by tying a
bandage round their bellies they can do so for the above space, without
experiencing any consequent inconvenience.]
Let us now then enquire why, in this new world, the reptiles and
insects are so large, the quadrupeds so small, and the men so cold.
These effects must depend on the quality of the earth and atmosphere,
on the degrees of heat and moisture, on the situation and height of
mountains, on the quality of running and stagnate waters, on the
extent of forests, and, in a word, on the state in which inanimate
nature presents itself in that country. In the new world there is
much less heat and more moisture than in the old. If we compare the
heat and cold, in each degree of latitude, we shall find a very great
difference; that at Quebec, which is under the same degree of latitude
as Paris, the rivers are covered with ice for months in the year, and
the grounds with snow several feet thick; the air, indeed, is so cold,
that the birds fly off at the approach of winter, and return not till
invited by the warmth of spring. This difference of heat under the same
latitude in the Temperate Zone, though considerable, is perhaps less
so than the difference of that under the Torrid Zone. At Senegal, we
are scorched, while at Peru, situate under the same line, we enjoy the
benign influence of a temperate climate. In such a situation is the
continent of America placed, and so formed, that every thing concurs
to diminish the action of heat. There we find the highest mountains
and greatest rivers in the known world; these mountains form a chain
which seems to terminate the length of the continent towards the west,
while the plains and low grounds are all situated on this side of the
mountains, from whose base they extend to the sea, which separates
the American from the European continents. Thus the east wind, which
constantly blows between the tropics, does not reach America until it
has traversed a vast extent of ocean, and has consequently been greatly
cooled; and for this reason it is much less warm at Brasil and Cayenne,
for example, than at Senegal and Guinea, where this east wind arrives,
charged with the heat of all the burning sands and desarts which it
necessarily passes in traversing both Asia and Africa.
In treating of the different colours of men, particularly negroes, it
appeared to be demonstrated that the strong tincture of brown or black
depends entirely on the situation of the country; that the negroes
of Nigritia, and those of the west coast of Africa are the blackest,
because those countries are so situated as to contain more heat than
any other part of the globe, from the east wind not reaching them until
it had passed immense tracks of land; that the American Indians, under
the line, are only tawny, and the Brasilians brown, though under the
same latitude as the negroes, because the heat of the climate is not
so great, and the east wind has been cooled with the water, and loaded
with humid vapours. The clouds which intercept the sun, and the rains
which refresh the earth, are periodical, and continue several months at
Cayenne, and other countries of South America. The first cause renders
all the east coasts of America more temperate than either Asia or
Africa; this wind arriving in a cool state begins to assume a degree
of heat in traversing the plains of America, but which is checked by
the enormous chain of mountains of which the western part of the new
continent is composed, so that it is less hot under the line at Peru
and Cayenne, and the natives are of a less dark complexion. If the
Cordeliers were reduced to a level with the adjacent plains, the heat
would be excessive in the western territories, and there would soon be
men as black at Chili and Peru, as on the western coasts of Africa. It
is evident then that diminution of heat in the new continent is owing
entirely to situation; and we shall now make it appear, that there is
a much greater degree of moisture in America. The mountains being the
most lofty of any upon the globe, and directly facing the east wind,
they stop and condense the vapours of the air, and thus give rise to a
number of springs, which, by their junction, form the greatest rivers
in the world. In proportion, therefore, to its extent there are more
running waters in the new continent than in the old, and which are
augmented by their confined situations; for the natives having never
checked the torrents, directed the rivers, nor drained the marshes,
immense tracts of land are covered by the stagnant waters, by which the
moisture of the air is increased and the heat diminished. Besides, the
earth being every where covered with trees and coarse weeds, it never
dries, but constantly produces humid and unwholesome exhalations. In
these gloomy regions, Nature remains concealed under her old garments,
never having received a new attire from the cultivation of man, but
totally neglected, her productions languish, become corrupted, and are
prematurely destroyed. It is principally then from the scarcity of
men in America, and from most of them living like the brutes, that
the earth has been neglected, remains cold, and is unable to produce
the active principles of Nature. To develope the seeds of the largest
animals and enable them to grow and multiply, requires all the heat
which the sun can communicate to a fertile soil; and for a reason
directly opposite it is, that insects, reptiles, and all the little
animals which wallow in the mud, whose blood is watery, and whose
increase depends on putrefaction, are more numerous and large in the
low, humid, and marshy lands of the new continent.
When we reflect on these very striking differences between the old and
new continents, we can hardly help supposing that the latter is, in
fact, more recent, and has remained buried under the ocean longer than
the rest of the globe; for, the enormous western mountains excepted,
which seem to be monuments of the most remote antiquity, it has all the
appearance of being a land newly sprung up. We find sea-shells in many
places under the very first stratum of the vegetable earth, formed into
masses of lime-stone, though usually less hard and compact than our
free-stone. If this continent is in reality as ancient as the other,
why did so few men exist on it? why were the most of that few wandering
savages? why did the Mexicans and Peruvians, who alone had entered
into society, reckon only 200 or 300 years from the first man who
taught them to assemble? why had they not reduced the lama, pacos, and
other animals, by which they were surrounded, into a domestic state?
As their society was in its infancy, so were their arts; their talents
were imperfect, their ideas unexpanded, their organs rude, and their
language barbarous. The names of their animals[C], of which we have
subjoined a few as a specimen, were so difficult to pronounce, that our
only astonishment is, how the Europeans should have taken the trouble
to write them.
[Footnote C: _Pelon ichiati oquitli_--the lama.
_Tapiierete_, in Brasil; _maniporous_, in Guinea--the tapir.
_Macatlchichiltic temamacama_--the antelope of New Spain.
_Quauhtla coymatl_--the Mexican hog.
_Tlacoozclotl_--the mountain cat.
_Tlaclaughqui ocelotl_, in Mexico--the jaguar.
_Hoitzlaquatzin_--the porcupine of New Spain.
_Xoloitzchuintli_--the Mexican wolf.]
Thus every circumstance seems to indicate, that the Americans were
new men, or rather men who had been so long estranged from the rest
of their species that they had lost all idea of the world from which
they had issued; that the greatest part of the American continent was
new land, unassisted by man, and in which Nature had not had time to
establish all her plans, or to display their full extent; that the men
are cold and the animals diminutive, because the ardour of the former,
and the largeness of the latter, depend on the heat and salubrity of
the air; and that, in the course of a few centuries when the lands are
cultivated, the forests cut down, the rivers confined within proper
channels, and the marshes drained, this very country will become the
most fruitful, healthy, and opulent in the world; as it appears already
in every part which has been cultivated by man. We mean not to infer
that large animals would then be produced, for the tapir and cabiai
will never attain the size of the elephant or hippopotamus, but those
which may be transported there will no longer diminish. By degrees man
will fill up the vacuums in these immense territories, which, when
discovered, were perfect desarts.
The first writers who recorded the conquests of the Spaniards, to
heighten the glory of their arms exaggerated the number of their
enemies; but is it possible for any reasonable man to credit that
there were millions of inhabitants at Cuba and St. Domingo, when those
writers admit there was neither a monarchy, a republic, nor scarcely
any society among them; and that in these two neighbouring islands,
situated at but a little distance from the continent, there were only
five species of animals, the largest of which was not bigger than a
rabbit? Than this fact, as affirmed by Laet, Acosta, and Father du
Tertre, in their different histories, no stronger proof can be adduced
of the empty and desart state of this new-discovered world.
M. Fabry, who travelled for fifteen months over the western parts of
America, beyond the Mississippi, assured me that he sometimes did
not meet a single man for the space of 300 or 400 leagues; and all
our officers who went from Quebec to the Ohio, and from that river
to Louisiana, agree that it is not uncommon to travel upwards of
100 leagues without seeing a single family of savages. From these
testimonies it is plain, that the most agreeable countries of this new
continent were little better than desarts; but what is more immediately
necessary to our purpose, they prove that we should distrust the
evidence of our nomenclators, who set down in their catalogues animals
as belonging to the new world which solely belong to the old, and
others as native of particular districts where in fact they never
existed; and in the same manner they have classed some animals as
natives of the old world, which belong exclusively to America.
I do not pretend to affirm positively that none of the animals which
inhabit the warm climates are not common to both. To be physically
certain of this it is necessary they should have been seen; but it is
evident, with respect to the large animals of America, that none of
them are to be found in the old continent, and very few of the small
ones. Besides, allowing there to be some exceptions, they must relate
to a trifling number of species, and in no degree affect the general
rule which I intend to establish, and which seems to me to be our only
certain guide to the knowledge of animals. This rule, which leads us
to judge of them as much by climate and disposition as from figure and
conformation, will seldom be found wrong, and it will enable us to
avoid and discover a multitude of errors. If, for example, we mean to
describe the hyæna of Arabia, we may safely affirm that it does not
exist in Lapland; but we will not say with Brisson, and some others,
that the hyæna and the glutton are the same animal; nor with Kolbe,
that the crossed-fox, which inhabits the northern parts of the new
continent, is found at the Cape of Good Hope, as the animal he mentions
is not a fox, but a jackall. But it is not my object at present to
point out all the errors of nomenclators; my intention is solely to
prove that their blunders would have been less had they paid some
attention to the differences of climates; if the history of animals
had been so far studied as to discover, which I have done, that those
of the southern parts of each continent are never found in both; and
lastly, if they had abstained from generic names, which have confounded
together a number of species, not only different, but even remote from
each other.
The true business of a nomenclator is not to enlarge his list, but to
form rational comparisons in order to contract it. Nothing can be more
easy than, by perusing all the authors on animals, and by selecting
their names and phrases, to form a table which however will always
be long, in proportion as the enquiry is superficial; while nothing
can be more difficult than to compare them with that judgment and
discernment which is necessary to reduce that table to its proper
dimensions. I said before, and now repeat, that in the whole known
part of the globe there are not above 200 species of quadrupeds,
including among them 40 species of apes. To each of these, therefore,
we had only to appropriate a name; and to retain 200 names, only a
very moderate exertion of memory is required; for what purpose then
are quadrupeds formed into classes and genera, which are nothing more
than props to serve the memory in the recollection of plants, which are
so very numerous, and often so very similar. But instead of a list of
200 quadrupeds we have volumes heaped upon volumes full of intricate
names and phrases. Why introduce an unintelligible jargon, when we may
be understood by pronouncing a simple name? Why change terms merely
to form classes? When a dozen animals are included under the name,
for example, of _the Rabbit_, why is the Rabbit itself omitted, and
must be sought for under the genus of _the Hare_? Is it not absurd
and ridiculous to form classes in which the most remote genera are
assembled together; to put in the first, for example, man and the
bat; the elephant and scaly lizard in the second; the lion and ferret
in the third; the hog and the mole in the fourth; and the rhinoceros
and the rat in the fifth? Ideas so vague and ill-conceived can never
maintain their ground. These works are destroyed by their own authors,
one edition contradicting another, and neither of them approved but
by children, or by such as are always the dupes of mystery, mistaking
the appearance of method for the reality of science. By comparing the
fourth edition of Linnæus's Systema Naturæ with the tenth, we find man
is no longer classed with the bat, but with the scaly lizard; that
the elephant, hog, and rhinoceros, instead of being classed as before
with the scaly lizard, mole, and rat, are all three huddled together
with the shrew-mouse. In the former he had reduced all quadrupeds to
five classes, but in the latter he divides them into seven. From these
alterations we may form some idea of those introduced among the genera,
and how the species have been jumbled and confounded. According to the
same author there are two species[D] of men, the man of day and the man
of night, and that these are so very distinct that they ought not to
be regarded as varieties of the same species. Is not this adding fable
to absurdity? and were it not better to remain silent with respect to
matters of which we are ignorant, than to found essential characters,
and general distinctions upon the grossest error? But to whatever
length criticisms of this kind might be extended, I shall proceed no
farther, especially as it does not form my principal object, having
already said enough to put every reader on his guard, against the
general as well as particular errors which abound so much in the works
of nomenclators.
[Footnote D: _Homo diurnus sapiens; homo nocturnus trogloditus._]
In drawing general conclusions, from what has been advanced, we shall
find that man is the only animated being in whose nature there is
sufficient strength, genius, and flexibility, to subsist and multiply
in all the different climates of the earth. It is evident that no
other animal possesses this grand privilege, for, far from being able
to multiply in every part of the globe, most of them are confined to
certain climates, and even particular districts. In every respect man
is the work of heaven, while many animals are the mere creatures of
the earth. These of one continent exist not on another, and if there
are a few exceptions, they are so changed and diminished as hardly to
be known. Can a stronger proof be given that the impression of their
form is not unalterable? that their nature, less permanent than that
of man, may in time be varied, and even absolutely changed? that from
the same cause those species which are least perfect, least active,
and furnished with the fewest engines of defence, as well as the most
delicate and the most cumbrous, have already, or will disappear, for
their very existence depends on the form which man gives to the surface
of the earth, or permits it to retain.
The prodigious Mammoth, whose enormous bones I have often viewed with
astonishment, and which were at least six times bigger than those of
the largest elephant, exists no longer; although its remains have been
found in Ireland, Siberia, Louisiana, and other places remote from each
other. Of all species of quadrupeds this was certainly the largest and
strongest, and since it has disappeared, how many smaller, weaker, and
less remarkable, must have perished, without having left any evidence
of their past existence? How many others have been improved or degraded
by the great vicissitude of the earth and waters, by the culture or
neglect of nature, by their long continuance in favourable or repugnant
climates, that they are no longer the same! and yet, next to man,
quadrupeds are beings whose nature is most fixed, and whose form most
permanent. Birds and fishes vary more: those of insects are subject
to greater variations still; and if we descend to plants, which ought
not to be excluded from animated nature, we shall be astonished at the
celerity and facility with which they vary and assume new forms.
It may not be impossible, then, without inverting the order of nature,
that all the animals of the new world originated from the same stock
as those of the old; that having been afterwards separated by immense
seas or impassable lands, they, in course of time, underwent all
the effects of a climate which was new to them, and which must also
have had its qualities changed by the very causes which produced its
separation; and that they, in consequence, became not only inferior in
size, but different in nature. But these circumstances, if true, ought
not to prevent us from considering them now as animals of different
species. From whatever causes these changes may have proceeded, whether
produced by time, climate, or soil, or whether originating with the
creation, they are not the less real. Nature is, indeed, in a perpetual
fluctuation. It is sufficient for man to watch her in his own time, to
look a little backward and forward, by way of forming a conjecture of
what she might have been formerly and what she may hereafter be.
As to the utility to be derived from this comparison of animals, it is
evident, that independent of correcting the errors of our nomenclators,
our knowledge of the animal creation will be enlarged, rendered
less imperfect and more certain; that we shall be in less hazard of
attributing to American animals, properties which belong to those of
the East Indies, because they may have the same name; that in treating
of foreign animals, from accounts given by travellers, we shall be more
able to distinguish names and facts, and to refer them to their true
species; and, in fine, that the history in which we are now engaged
will be less erroneous, and perhaps more luminous and complete.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 102. _Black Cougar_]
[Illustration: FIG. 101. _Tiger_]
THE TIGER.
In the class of carnivorous animals, the lion stands foremost, and
he is immediately followed by the tiger, who, possessing all the bad
qualities of the former, is a stranger to his good ones. To pride,
courage, and strength, the lion adds dignity, clemency, and generosity,
while the tiger is ferocious without provocation and cruel without
necessity. Thus it is throughout all nature where rank proceeds from
the superiority of strength. The first class, sole master of all, are
less tyrannical than their immediate inferiors, who, denied unlimited
authority, abuse those powers which they possess; thus the tiger is
more to be dreaded than the lion. The latter often forgets that he is
the sovereign, or strongest of animals; with an even pace he traverses
the plains and forests; man he attacks not unless provoked, nor animals
but when goaded by hunger. The tiger, on the contrary, though glutted
with carnage, has still an insatiate thirst for blood; his rancour has
no intervals. With indiscriminate fury he tears in pieces every animal
he comes near, and destroys with the same ferocity a fresh animal as
he had done the first. Thus he is the scourge of every country he
inhabits; and of the appearance of man or his weapons, he is fearless.
He will destroy whole flocks of domestic animals if he meets with them,
and all the wild animals that come in his way. He attacks the young
elephant and rhinoceros, and will sometimes brave the lion himself.
The form of the body usually corresponds with the nature and
disposition. The noble air of the lion, the height of his limbs in
exact proportion to the length of his body, his large thick mane, which
covers his shoulders and shades his face, his determined aspect, and
solemn pace, seem to announce the dignity and majestic intrepidity of
his nature. The tiger has a body too long, limbs disproportionally
short, naked head, and haggard eyes; strong characteristics of
desperate malice and insatiable cruelty. He has no instinct but an
uniform rage, a blind fury, so undistinguishing that he not unoften
devours his own progeny, and even tears the dam in pieces if she offers
to defend them. Would he were to gratify his thirst for blood to its
utmost, and by destroying them at their birth extinguish the whole race
of monsters which he produces!
Happy is it for other animals that the species of tiger is not
numerous, and that it is chiefly confined to the warmest provinces
of the East. They are found in Malabar, Siam, Bengal, and in all the
countries inhabited by the elephant and rhinoceros. It is, indeed,
said, that they accompany the latter for the purpose of eating their
dung, which serves to purge them. Be this as it may, they are often
seen together at the sides of lakes and rivers, where they are probably
compelled to go by thirst, having often occasion for water to cool that
fervor they so constantly endure. It is also a convenient situation to
surprise his victims, since the heat of the climate compels all animals
to seek for water several times a day; here he chooses his prey, or
rather multiplies his massacres, for having killed one animal, he
often proceeds to the destruction of others, tearing open their bodies,
and swallowing their blood by long draughts; for which their thirst
seems never to be appeased.
When, however, he has killed a large animal, as a horse, or buffalo,
he does not devour it on the spot, for fear of being disturbed, but
drags it off to the forest, which he does with such ease, that the
swiftness of his course seems scarcely retarded by the enormous load
which he trails after him. From this circumstance we might judge of his
strength, but we shall have a more just idea of it by considering his
bodily dimensions. Some travellers have compared him for size to the
horse, others to the buffalo, and others merely say he is larger than
the lion; but we have accounts more recent, which deserve the utmost
confidence. I have been assured by M. de la Lande-Magon that he saw a
tiger in the East-Indies fifteen feet long; allowing that he includes
the tail, and granting four feet for that, the body would still be
more than ten. It is true that the skin preserved in the Royal Cabinet
of France is not more than seven feet from the tip of the nose to the
insertion of the tail; but this tiger had been taken very young, and
was afterwards always confined in a very narrow apartment, where the
want of exercise, and space to range in, restraint and, perhaps, not
having proper nourishment, not only its life might have been shortened,
but the growth of its body prevented. From the dissection of animals of
every species that have been reared in houses or court-yards, we find
that their bodies and members for want of exercise, never attain their
natural dimensions, and that the organs which are not used as those of
generation, are so little expanded as to be scarcely perceivable.
The difference of climate alone is capable of producing the same
effects as confinement and want of exercise. None of the animals of
hot countries produce in cold ones, even though well fed, and at
full liberty; and as reproduction is a natural consequence of full
nutrition, it is evident that when the former does not operate the
latter must be incomplete; and that, in such animals, cold of itself
is sufficient to restrain the powers of the internal mould, and
to diminish the growth, since it destroys the active faculties of
reproduction. It is not, therefore, surprising that the tiger above
alluded to should not have acquired its natural growth; yet from a bare
view of its stuffed skin, and an examination of its skeleton, we may
form an idea of its formidable strength as an animal. Upon the bones
of the legs there are inequalities which denote muscular ligatures
stronger than those of the lion. These bones are also to the full as
strong, though shorter; and, as already intimated, the height of the
tiger's legs bear no proportion to the length of his body. Thus that
velocity which Pliny ascribes to him and which the word _tiger_ seems
to imply, ought not to be understood of his ordinary movements, or the
celerity of his continued course; for it is evident, that as his legs
are short and he can neither walk nor run so fast as those animals
which have them proportionally longer; but this prodigious swiftness,
may with great propriety, be applied to the extraordinary bounds he
is capable of making without any particular effort, for if we suppose
him to have the same strength and agility in proportion with the cat,
which he greatly resembles in conformation, and which in an instant
will leap several feet, we must allow that the bounds of a tiger, whose
body is ten times as large, must be immense. It is not, therefore,
the quickness of his running, but of his leaping that Pliny meant to
denote, and which from the impossibility of evading, when he has made a
spring, still renders him more formidable.
The tiger is, perhaps, the only animal whose spirit cannot be subdued.
Neither force nor restraint, violence nor flattery, can prevail, in the
least, on his stubborn Nature. He is equally indignant at the gentle
and harsh usage of his keeper; and time instead of mollifying his
disposition, only serves to increase his fierceness and malignity. With
equal wrath he snaps at the hand that feeds as that which chastises
him. He roars at the sight of every object which lives, and seems to
consider all as his proper prey; he seems to devour beforehand with a
look, menacing it with the grinding of his teeth, and, regardless of
his chains, makes efforts to dart upon it, as if to shew his malignity
when incapable of exerting his force.
To complete the idea of the strength of this terrible animal we shall
quote Father Tachard's account of a combat between a tiger and three
elephants, at Siam, of which he was an eye-witness; he says, "a lofty
palisade of bamboo cane was built, about a hundred feet square, into
which inclosure three elephants were introduced, for the purpose of
fighting a tiger. Their heads, and part of their trunks, were covered
with a kind of armour like a mask. As soon as we arrived at the place
a tiger was brought forth, of a size much larger than any we had seen
before; he was not at first let loose, but held by two cords, so that
he could not make a spring; one of the elephants approached and gave
him three or four blows on the back with his trunk, with such force as
to beat him to the ground, where he lay for some time without motion,
as if he had been dead, although this first attack had greatly abated
his fury, he was no sooner untied, and at liberty, than he gave a loud
roar, and made a spring at the elephant's trunk, which was stretched
out to strike him; but the elephant drew up his trunk with great
dexterity, received the tiger upon his tusks, and tossed him up into
the air. This so discouraged him that he no more ventured to approach
the elephant, but made several turns round the palisade, making several
efforts to spring at the spectators. Shortly after a second, and then
a third elephant was set against him, each of which gave him such
blows that he once more lay for dead, and they certainly would have
killed him had not an end been put to the combat." From this account
we may form some idea of the strength and ferocity of the tiger; for
this animal, though young, and not arrived at his full growth, though
reduced to captivity, and held by cords, yet he was so formidable to
three such enormous foes, that it was thought necessary to protect
those parts of their bodies which were not defended by impenetrable
skin.
The tiger, of which an anatomical description was made by the
Jesuits at China, and communicated by Father Gouie to the Academy of
Sciences, seemed to be the true species,[E] as does also that which
the Portuguese have distinguished by the name of Royal Tiger. Dellon
expressly says, in his Travels, that tigers abound more in Malabar than
in any other part of the East Indies; that their species are numerous,
but that the largest, which is as big as a horse, and called by the
Portuguese the Royal Tiger, is very rare. To all appearance, then, the
Royal Tiger is not a different species; he is found in the East Indies
only; and, notwithstanding what has been said by Brisson, and others,
is an utter stranger at Brasil. I am even inclined to think that the
real tiger is peculiar to Asia, and the inland parts of the south of
Africa; for though the generality of travellers, who have frequented
the African coasts, speak of tigers as very common, yet it is very
plain, from their own accounts of them, that they are either leopards,
panthers, or ounces. Dr. Shaw says, that the lion and panther hold the
first rank at Tunis and Algiers, and that in those parts of Barbary the
tiger is an animal unknown. This observation seems founded in truth,
for they were Indian, and not African, ambassadors, who presented
Augustus, while at Samos, the first tiger the Romans had ever seen; and
it was also from the Indies that Heliogabalus procured those tigers,
with which, in order to represent the god Bacchus, he proposed that his
car should be drawn.
[Footnote E: This tiger was streaked, and had been slain, with four
others, in the field, by the Emperor, it weighed 265lbs; but one of
them weighed 400; when dissected, one-third of its stomach was full of
worms, and yet it could not be said the animal had begun to putrify.
_Hist. Acad._ 1669.]
Thus the species of the tiger has always been more rare and less
diffused than that of the lion. The female, like the lioness, however,
produces four or five cubs at a time. She is fierce at all times, but,
upon her young being in danger, her fury becomes excessive. She then
braves every danger to secure them, and will pursue the plunderers of
them with such ferocity, that they are often obliged to drop one to
secure the rest; this she takes up and conveys to the nearest cover,
and then renews the pursuit, and will follow them to the very gates of
towns, or to the ships in which they may have taken refuge; and when
she has no longer hopes recovering her young, she expresses her agony
by the most dismal howls of despair.
The tiger testifies his anger in the same manner as the lion; he moves
the skin of his face, shews his teeth, and roars in a frightful manner;
but the tone of his voice is very different; and some travellers
have compared it to the hoarse croak of certain large birds; and the
ancients expressed it by saying, _Tigrides indomitæ raucant, rugiuntque
Leones_.
The skins of these animals are much esteemed, particularly in China;
the Mandarins cover their seats and sedans with them, and also their
cushions and pillows in winter. In Europe, though scarce, they are of
no great value; those of the panther and leopard being held in much
greater estimation. The skin is the only advantage, trifling as it
is, which man can derive from this dreadful animal. It has been said
that his sweat is poisonous, and that the hair of his whiskers is more
dangerous than an envenomed arrow; but the real mischiefs he does when
alive are sufficient, without giving imaginary ones to parts of his
body when dead; for certain it is, the Indians eat the flesh of the
tiger, and that they neither find it disagreeable nor unwholesome, and
if the hair of his whiskers, taken in the form of a pill, do destroy,
it is that being hard and sharp it produces the same effect in the
stomach as a number of small needles would.
THE PANTHER, OUNCE, AND LEOPARD.
In order to avoid an erroneous use of names, to prevent doubt, and
to banish ambiguity, it may be necessary to remark that, in Asia and
Africa, there are, beside the tiger, whose history we have just given,
three other animals of the same genus, but which not only differ
from him, but also from each other. These are the Panther, Ounce and
Leopard, which have been confounded together by naturalists, and also
with a species of the same kind peculiar to America; but to prevent
confusion, we shall, in the present instance, confine ourselves solely
to those of the old continent.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 107. _Panther_]
[Illustration: FIG. 108. _Caracal_]
The first of these species is the Panther, (_fig. 107._) which the
Greeks distinguished by the name of Pardalis, the Latins by that of
Panthera, and Pardus, and the more modern Latins by Leopardus. The body
of this animal, when it has attained its full growth, is five or six
feet long, from the tip of the nose to the insertion of the tail, which
is above two feet long. Its colour is of a yellow hue, more or less
dark on the back and sides, and whitish under the belly; it is marked
with black spots which are circular, or in the form of a ring, and in
which rings there are generally lesser spots in the centre of the same
colour; some of these are oval, others, circular, and are frequently
above three inches in diameter; on the face and legs the black spots
are single, and on the tail and belly they are irregular.
The second is the Little Panther of Oppian, which the ancients have
distinguished by no particular name, but which modern travellers have
called Ounce, corrupted from the name of lynx or lunx. To this animal
we shall preserve the name of Ounce, because, in fact, it seems to have
some affinity to the lynx. It is much less than the panther, its body
being only about three feet and a half long, which is nearly the size
of the lynx; its hair is longer than that of the panther, as is also
its tail, which sometimes measures three feet, although its body is
one-third less than that of the panther, whose tail never exceeds two
feet and an half. The colour of the ounce is whitish grey upon the back
and sides, and still more white under the belly; the back and sides
of the panther are always yellow, but the spots are nearly of the same
size and form in them both.
The third species was unknown to the ancients, being peculiar to
Senegal, Guinea, and other southern countries which they had not
discovered; and which we, following the example of travellers, shall
call Leopard a name which has been improperly applied to the panther.
The Leopard is larger than the ounce, though considerably smaller than
the panther, being only four feet in length, the tail measures from two
to two feet and a half. On the back and sides the hair is of a yellow
colour, under the belly it is whitish; it has black annular spots like
those of the panther and ounce, but smaller and less regularly disposed.
Each of these animals, therefore, forms a different species. Our
furriers call the skins of the first species panther skins; those of
the second, which we call ounce, African tiger skins; and those of the
third, or leopard, very improperly tiger skins.
Oppian knew the panther and ounce, and was the first who observed there
were two species of the former, the one large and the other small.
Though alike in the form of their bodies and the disposition of the
spots, yet they differed in the length of their tails, which in the
small species was longer than in the large ones. The Arabians have
named the large panther Nemer, and the small one Phet or Phed; which
last seems to be a corruption of Faadh, the present name of this animal
in Barbary. "The Faadh," says Dr. Shaw, in his Travels, "resembles the
leopard, (he should have expressed it panther) in having similar spots,
in other respects they however differ, for the skin of the faadh is
more dark and coarse, and its disposition is also less fierce." Besides
we learn from a passage of Albert, commented on by Gesner, that the
phet, or phed of the Arabs, is called in the Italian, and some other
European languages Leuaza, or Lonza. It is beyond a doubt then, that
the little panther of Oppian, the phet or phed of the Arabians, the
faadh of Barbary, and the onza, or ounce of the Europeans, is the same
animal; and probably also is the Pard or Pardus of the ancients, and
the Panthera of Pliny; since he mentions its hair is white, whereas, as
we have observed, that of the great Panther is yellow. It is, besides,
highly probable that the little panther was simply called pard or
pardus, and that, in process of time, the large panther obtained the
name of leopard, or leopardus, from a notion that it was a mongrel
species, which had aggrandized itself by an intermixture with that
of the lion. As this could only be an unfounded prejudice, I have
preferred the primitive name of panther to the modern compound one of
leopard, which last I have applied to another animal that has hitherto
been mentioned by equivocal names only. The ounce therefore differs
from the panther, in being smaller, having a longer tail, also longer
hair, of a whitish grey colour; while the leopard differs from them
both, by having a coat of a brilliant yellow, more or less deep, and by
the smallness of his spots, which are generally disposed in groups, as
if each were formed by three or four united.
Pliny, and several after him, have said, that the coat of the female
panther was whiter than that of the male. This may be true of the
ounce, but no such difference have we ever observed in the panthers
belonging to the menagerie of Versailles, which were designed from
life; and if there be any difference between the colour of the male and
female it can be neither very permanent nor sensible; in some of the
skins we have, indeed, perceived different shades, but which we rather
ascribed to the difference of age or climate than of sex.
The animals described and dissected by the Academy of Sciences, under
the name of Tigers, and that described by Caius, in Gesner, under
the name of Uncia, are of the same species as our leopard; and of
this there cannot remain a doubt, after comparing the figure, and the
description which we have given, with those of Caius and M. Perrault.
The latter, indeed, says, that the animals so dissected and described
by the gentlemen of the Academy, under the name of tigers, were not the
ounce of Caius; but the only reasons he assigns are, that the ounce is
smaller, and has not white on the under part of its body. It may also
be observed, that Caius, who does not give the exact dimensions, says,
generally it was bigger than the shepherd's dog, and as thick as the
bull-dog, though shorter in its legs; how, therefore, Perrault should
assert the ounce of Caius to be smaller than the tigers dissected by
the gentlemen of the Academy I am at a loss to conceive, for those
animals measured only four feet from the nose to the tail, which is
the exact length of the leopard we are now describing. On the whole,
then, it appears, that the tigers of the Academy, the ounce of Caius,
and our leopard, are the same animal; and not less true do I conceive
it that our panther is the same with the panther of the ancients,
notwithstanding the distinctions which have been attempted to be made
by Linnæus, Brisson, and other nomenclators, as they perfectly resemble
each other in every respect but size, and that may safely be ascribed
to confinement and want of exercise. This difference of size at first
perplexed me, but after a scrupulous examination of the large skins
sold by the furriers with that of our own, I had not the smallest doubt
of their being the same animals. The panther I have described, and two
other animals of the same species kept at Versailles, were brought from
Barbary. The two first were presented to the French King by the Regency
of Algiers, and the third was purchased for his Majesty of an Algerine
Jew.
It is particularly necessary to observe, that neither of the animals
we are now describing can be classed with the pardus of Linnæus, or
the leopardus of Brisson, as they are described with having long spots
on the belly, which is a characteristic that belongs neither to the
panther, ounce, or leopard, and yet the panther of the ancients has it,
as well as the pardus of Gesner, and the panthera of Alpinus; but from
the researches I have made I am convinced that these three animals,
and perhaps a fourth, which we shall treat of hereafter, and which have
not these long spots on the belly, are the only species of this kind to
be found in Asia and Africa, and therefore we must hold this character
of our nomenclators as fictitious, especially when we recollect,
that if any animals have these long spots, either in the old or new
continent, they are always upon the neck or back, and never on the
belly. We shall merely observe further, that in reading the ancients we
must not confound the _panther_ with the _panthera_, the latter is the
animal we have described, but the panther of the scholiasts of Homer
and other authors, is a kind of timid wolf, perhaps the jackall, as I
shall explain when I come to the history of that animal.
After having dissipated the cloud under which our nomenclators seem to
have obscured Nature, and removed every ambiguity, by giving the exact
description of the three animals under consideration, we shall now
proceed to the peculiarities which relate to them respectively.
Of the panther, which I had an opportunity of examining alive, his
appearance was fierce, he had a restless eye, a cruel countenance,
precipitate motions, and a cry similar to that of an enraged dog,
but more strong and harsh; his tongue was red and exceedingly rough,
his teeth were strong and pointed; his claws sharp and hard; his skin
was beautiful, of a yellow hue, interspersed with black spots of an
annular form, and his hair short; the upper part of his tail was marked
with large black spots, and with black and white ringlets towards the
extremity; his size and make was similar to that of a vigorous mastiff,
but his legs were not so large.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 103. _Leopard_]
[Illustration: FIG. 104. _Ounce_]
All our travellers confirm the testimonies of the ancients as to the
large and small panther, that is, our panther and ounce. It appears
that there now exist, as in the days of Oppian, in that part of Africa
which extends along the Mediterranean, and in the parts of Asia which
were known to the ancients, two species of panthers, the largest of
which has been called panther or leopard, and the smaller ounce, by the
generality of travellers. By them it is universally allowed that the
ounce is easily tamed, that he is trained to the chace and employed for
this purpose in Persia, and in several other provinces of Asia; that
some ounces are so small as to be carried by a horseman on the crupper,
and so mild as to allow themselves to be handled and caressed.[F] The
Panther appears to be of a more fierce and stubborn nature; when in
the power of man, and in his gentlest moments, he seems rather to be
subdued than tamed. Never does he entirely lose the ferocity of his
disposition; and in order to train him to the chace, much care and
precaution are necessary. When thus employed, he is shut up in a cage
and carried in one of the little vehicles of the country; as soon
as the game appears, the door is opened, and he springs towards his
prey, generally overtaking it in three or four bounds, drags it to the
ground and strangles it; but if disappointed of his aim he becomes
furious, and will even attack his master, who to prevent this dangerous
consequence usually carries with him some pieces of flesh or live
animals, as lambs or kids, one of which he puts in his way to appease
the fury arising from his disappointment.
[Footnote F: A particular account of this practice is related in
Tavernier's Travels; Chardin's Travels in Persia; Gesner's Hist. Quad.
Pros. Alp. Hist. Egypt. Bernier dans le Mosul, &c.]
The species of the ounce (_fig. 104._) seems to be more numerous, and
more diffused than that of the panther; it is very common in Arabia,
Barbary, and the southern parts of Asia, Egypt, perhaps, excepted.[G]
They are even known in China, where they are distinguished by the
name of _hinen-pao_.[H] The ounce is employed for the chace, in the
hot climates of Asia, because dogs are very rarely to be found unless
transported thither, and then they very soon lose not only their voice
but their instinct.[I] Besides the panther, ounce, and leopard, have
such an antipathy to dogs, that they attack them in preference to all
other animals.[J] In Europe our sporting dogs have no enemy but the
wolf; but in countries full of tigers, lions, panthers, leopards, and
ounces, which are all more strong and cruel than the wolf, to attempt
to keep dogs would be in vain. As the scent of the ounce is inferior to
that of the dog, he hunts solely by the eye; with such vigour does he
bound, that a ditch, or a wall of several feet high, is no impediment
to his career; he often climbs trees to watch for his prey, and when
near, will suddenly dart upon them; and this method is also adopted by
the panther and leopard.
[Footnote G: Maserier affirms that there are neither lions, tigers, nor
leopards in Egypt. _Descrip. Egypt, Tom. II._]
[Footnote H: A kind of leopard or panther found in the province of
Pekin; it is not so ferocious as the ordinary tigers. _Thevenot._]
[Footnote I: Vide Voyage de Jean Ovington, _Tom. I. p. 278_.]
[Footnote J: The leopards, says le Maire, are deadly enemies to dogs,
and devour all of them they meet.]
The Leopard, (_fig. 103._) has the same manners and disposition as
the panther; but in no part does he appear to have been tamed like
the ounce; nor do the Negroes of Senegal and Guinea, where he greatly
abounds, ever make use of him in the chace. He is generally larger than
the ounce, but smaller than the panther; and his tail, though shorter
than that of the ounce, is from two to two feet and a half in length.
This leopard of Senegal and Guinea, to which we have particularly
appropriated the name of _leopard_, is probably the animal which at
Congo is called the _Engoi_; and perhaps also the _Antamba_[K] of
Madagascar. I quote these names, from a persuasion that an acquaintance
with the denominations applied to them in the countries which they
inhabit would increase our knowledge of animals.
[Footnote K: The antamba is a beast as large as a dog; it has a round
head, and, in the opinion of the Negroes, resembles the leopard; it
devours both men and cattle, and is only to be found in the most
unfrequented parts of the island. _Flacourt's Voyage._]
The species of the leopard seems to be subject to more varieties than
that of the panther and the ounce. I have examined many leopards' skins
which differed from each other, not only in the ground colour, but in
the shade of the spots which last are always smaller than those of the
panther or the ounce. In all leopards' skins, the spots are nearly of
the same size and the same figure, and their chief difference consists
in their colour being deeper in some than in others; in being also more
or less yellow, consists also the difference in the hair itself; but as
all these skins are nearly of the same size, both in the body and tail,
it is highly probable they belong to the same species of animals.
The panther, ounce, and leopard, are only found in Africa, and the
hottest climates of Asia; they have never been diffused over the
northern, nor even the temperate regions. Aristotle speaks of the
panther as an animal of Asia and Africa, and expressly says, it does
not exist in Europe. It is impossible, therefore, that these animals,
which are confined to the torrid zone of the old continent, could
ever have passed to the new world by any northern lands; and it will
be found, by the description we shall give of the American animals
of this kind, that they are a different species, and ought not to be
confounded with those of Africa and Asia, as they have been by most of
our nomenclators.
These animals, in general, delight in the thickest forests, and
often frequent the borders of rivers, and the environs of solitary
habitations, where they surprise their prey, and seize equally the tame
and wild animals that come there to drink. Men they seldom attack, even
though provoked. They easily climb trees in pursuit of wild cats and
other animals, which cannot escape them. Though they live solely by
prey, and are usually meagre, travellers pretend that their flesh is
not unpalatable; the Indians and negroes eat it, but they prefer that
of the dog. With respect to their skins, they are all valuable, and
make excellent furs. The most beautiful and most costly is that of the
leopard, which, when the colours are bright, not unfrequently sells for
eight or nine guineas.
THE JAGUAR.
The jaguar (_fig. 105._) resembles the ounce in size, and nearly so in
the form of the spots upon his skin, and in disposition. He is less
ferocious than the panther or the leopard. The ground of his colour,
like that of the leopard, is a bright yellow, and not grey like that
of the ounce. His tail is shorter than that of either; his hair is
longer than the panther's, but shorter than that of the ounce; it is
frizzled when he is young, but smooth when at full growth. I never saw
this animal alive, but had one sent me entire and well preserved in
spirits, and it is from this subject the figure and description have
been drawn; it was taken when very young, and brought up in the house
till it was two years old, and then killed for the purpose of being
sent to me; it had not therefore acquired its full growth, but it was
evident, from a slight inspection, that its full size would hardly
have equalled that of an ordinary dog. It is, nevertheless, an animal
the most formidable, the most cruel, it is, in a word, the tiger of
the new world, where Nature seems to have diminished all the genera of
quadrupeds. The Jaguar, like the tiger, lives on prey; but a lighted
brand will put him to flight, and if his appetite is satisfied, he so
entirely loses all courage and vivacity, that he will fly from a single
dog. He discovers no signs of activity or alertness but when pressed
with hunger. The savages, by nature cowardly, dread his approach. They
pretend he has a particular propensity to destroy them, and that if
he meets with Indians and Europeans asleep together, he will pass
the latter and kill the former. The same thing has been said of the
leopard, that he prefers black men to white, that he scents them out,
and can distinguish them as well by night as by day.
Almost all the authors who have written the History of the New World,
mention this animal, some by the name of tiger or leopard, and others
under the names given them at Brasil, Mexico, &c. The first who gave
a particular description of him were Piso and Marcgrave, who called
him jaguara, instead of janouara, his Brasilian name. They also speak
of another animal of the same genus, and perhaps of the same species,
under the name of jaguarette; but, like those two authors, we have
distinguished them from each other, because there is a probability
of their being different species; but whether they are really so, or
only varieties of the same species, we cannot determine, having never
seen but one of the kinds. Piso and Marcgrave say, that the jaguarette
differs from the jaguar, by its hair being shorter, more glossy, and
of a different colour, being black, interspersed with spots of a still
deeper black. But from the similitude in the form of his body, in his
manners, and disposition, he may, nevertheless, be only a variety of
the same species, especially as, according to the testimony of Piso,
the ground colour of the jaguar, as well as that of the spots, vary in
different individuals; he says that some are marked with black, and
others with red or yellowish spots; and with regard to the difference
of colour, that is, of grey, yellow, or black, the same is to be met
with in other species of animals, as there are black wolves, black
foxes, black squirrels, &c. If such variations are not so common among
wild as tame animals, it is because the former are less liable to those
accidents which tend to produce them. Their lives being more uniform,
their food less various, and their freedom less restrained, their
nature must be more permanent, that is, less subject to accidental
alterations and changes in colour.
The jaguar is found in Brasil, Paraguay, Tucuman, Guiana, in the
country of the Amazons, in Mexico, and in all parts of South America.
At Cayenne, however, this animal is more scarce than the cougar, which
they denominate red tiger, nor is the jaguar so common now in Brasil,
which appears his native country, as it was formerly. A price has been
set upon his head, so that many of them have been destroyed, and the
others have withdrawn themselves from the coasts to the inland parts of
the country. The jaguarette appears to have been always more scarce,
or at least to have inhabited those places which were distant from the
haunts of men, and the few travellers who mention him appear to have
drawn their accounts entirely from Marcgrave and Piso.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 105. _Jaguar of New Spain_]
[Illustration: FIG. 106. _Cougar_]
SUPPLEMENT.
M. le Brun had a female Jaguar of New Spain (_fig. 105._) sent him
in the year 1775; it appeared very young, and was much less than the
one described in the original work, this measuring one foot eleven
inches long, and the former two feet five inches; there was a great
resemblance between them, and the differences only such as are common
to the varieties of the same species. The ground colour of the one we
are now speaking of was a dirty grey intermixed with red: the spots
were yellow, bordered with black; its head yellow, and ears black, with
a white spot on the external part.
Among a number of excellent remarks made by M. Sonnini de Manoncour,
respecting the jaguars of Guiana, he says, "the hair of the young
jaguar is not frizzled, as stated by M. de Buffon, but perfectly
smooth, and with regard to their only equalling the size of an ordinary
dog, I have had the skin of one that measured near five feet from
the nose to the tail, which was two feet long; and from the tracks I
have seen of these animals I have little doubt of the American tigers
being as large as those of Africa, except the royal tiger, the largest
animal to which that name is given; for the panther, which M. de
Buffon considers the largest, does not exceed five or six feet when
full grown, and it is certain that some of these animals exceed those
dimensions. When young their colour is a deep yellow, which becomes
lighter as they advance in years. He is not by any means an indolent
animal; he constantly attacks dogs, commits great devastation among
flocks, and in the desarts is even formidable to men. In a journey
I made through these forests, we were tormented with one for three
successive nights, and yet he avoided all our attempts to destroy him;
but finding we kept up large fires, of which they are much afraid, he
at last left us with a dismal howling. At Cayenne the natives have an
idea that the jaguar would rather destroy them than the whites, but
it is not so with the savages, with whom I have travelled through the
desarts, and never found them to have any particular terror; they slept
as we did, with their hammocks suspended, making a little fire under
them, which often went out before the morning; and, in short, took no
particular precautions, where they knew themselves surrounded with
those animals. (This, observes M. Buffon, is a strong proof that they
are not very dangerous animals to men.) The flesh of the jaguar is not
good. All the animals of the new continent fly from him, not being able
to withstand his power: the only one capable of making any tolerable
resistance is the ant-eater, who, on being attacked, turns on his back,
and often preserves himself by the strength of his long claws."
THE COUGAR.
The Cougar, (_fig. 106._) is longer but less thick than the jaguar; he
is more agile, more slender, and stands higher on his legs; he has a
small head, long tail, and short hair, which is nearly of one entire
colour, namely, a lively red, intermixed with a few blackish tints,
particularly on his back. He is neither marked with stripes like the
tiger, nor with spots like the panther, ounce, or leopard. His chin,
neck, and all the inferior parts of his body are whitish. Though not
so strong as the jaguar he is as fierce, and perhaps more cruel. He
appears more ravenous, for having once seized his prey, he kills it,
and without waiting to tear it to pieces, he continues to eat and
suck alternately, until he has gorged his appetite and glutted his
blood-thirsty fury.
These animals are common in Guiana. They have been known formerly
to swim over from the continent to Cayenne, in order to devour the
flocks; insomuch that they were at first considered as the scourge of
the colony; but by degrees the settlers lessened their numbers, and by
continually hunting them have compelled the remainder to retire far
from the cultivated parts of the country. They are found in Brasil,
Paraguay, and in the country of the Amazons; and there is reason to
believe that the animal, described by some travellers, under the name
of the Ocorome, in Peru, is the same as the cougar, as well as that in
the country of the Iroquois, which has been considered as a tiger,
though it is neither striped like that animal, nor spotted like the
panther.
The cougar, by the lightness of his body, and length of his legs,
seems to be more calculated for speed, and climbing of trees, than the
jaguar. They are equally indolent and cowardly, when glutted with prey;
and they seldom attack men unless they find them asleep. When there is
a necessity for passing the night in the woods, the kindling a fire
is the only precaution necessary to prevent their approach.[L] They
delight in the shades of forests, where they hide themselves in some
bushy tree, in order to dart upon such animals as pass by. Though they
live only on prey, and drink blood more often than water, yet it is
said their flesh is very palatable. Piso says, it is as good as veal;
and Charlevoix, and others, have compared it to mutton. I think it is
hardly credible that the flesh can be well tasted; and therefore prefer
the testimony of Desmarchais, who says, the best thing about this
animal is his skin, of which they make horse-cloths, his flesh being
generally lean and of a disagreeable flavour.
[Footnote L: The Indians on the banks of the Oronoka, in Guiana, light
a fire during the night in order to frighten away the tigers who dare
not approach the place at long as the fire remains burning.]
SUPPLEMENT.
Mr. Colinson mentions another species of cougar, which is found on
the mountains of Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and the adjacent
provinces, and which, from his account, seems to differ very much from
that just described; his legs being shorter, and his body and tail
much longer, but in colour, and in the shape of the head, they have a
perfect resemblance.
M. de la Borde describes three species of rapacious animals at Cayenne;
first, the jaguar, which they call tiger; the second, the cougar, or
red tiger; (the former is about the size of a large bull-dog, and the
latter much smaller) and the third they call black tiger, which we
have termed black cougar. (_fig. 102._) "Its head, continues M. de la
Borde, is somewhat like that of a common cougar; it has long black
hair, a long tail, and large whiskers, but is much less than the other.
The skin of both the jaguar and cougar are easily penetrated even
with the arrows of the Indians. When very hard set for food, they will
attack cows and oxen; in this case they spring upon their backs, and
having brought them to the ground, they tear them to pieces, first
opening their breasts and bellies, to glut themselves with their blood;
they then drag pieces of flesh into the wood, covering the remainder
with branches of trees, and keeping near to feed upon it, until it
begins to putrify, when they touch it no more. They will keep near a
flock of wild hogs, for the purpose of seizing the stragglers, but
cautiously avoid being surrounded by them. They often seek for prey
on the sea-shore, and devour the eggs left there by the turtles: they
also make prey of the caïmans, or alligators, lizards, and fishes; to
take the former, they use the craft of lying down by the edge of the
water, which they strike so as to make sufficient noise to attract his
attention, who will come towards the place, and no sooner puts his head
above water, than his seducer makes a certain spring at him, kills and
drags him to some convenient place where he may devour him at leisure.
It is said by the Indians that the jaguar decoys the agouti in the
same manner, by counterfeiting his cry. They sometimes eat the leaves
and buds of the Indian figs; they are excellent swimmers, and cross
the largest rivers. They seldom have more than one young at a time,
which they hide in the trunks of hollow trees. They eat their flesh at
Cayenne, and, when young, it is as white as that of a rabbit."
The cougar is easily tamed, and rendered nearly as familiar as domestic
animals.
THE LYNX.
The gentlemen of the Academy of Sciences have given a very accurate
description of the Lynx, and have discussed with equal ingenuity and
erudition the circumstances and names relative to this animal, which
occur in the writings of the ancients. They have shewn that the lynx
of Ælian is the same animal which they have dissected and described
under the name of Lupus-cervarius, and justly censure those who have
taken it for the Thos of Aristotle. This discussion is enriched with
observations and reflections equally interesting and pertinent; it is
a pity, therefore, they had not adopted its real name of lynx, instead
of that which is the same that Gaza gave to the _thos_ of Aristotle.
Having, like Oppian, intimated that there are two species or races of
the lynx, the one large, which chaces the stag and fallow-deer, and
the other smaller, which scarcely hunts any thing but the hare, they
appear to have confounded the two species together, namely, the spotted
lynx, which is commonly found in the northern countries; and the lynx
of the Levant or Barbary, whose skin is of an uniform colour. I have
seen both these animals alive, and they closely resemble each other
in many particulars. They have both long stripes of black hair at the
extremities of their ears. This very circumstance, by which Ælian first
distinguished the lynx, belongs, in fact, to these animals only, and
perhaps it was this which induced the Academy to consider them as the
same species. But, independently of the difference of colour and spots
upon the hair, it will appear extremely probable that they belong to
two distinct species.
Klein says, that the most beautiful lynx belongs to Africa and Asia in
general, and to Persia in particular; that he had seen one at Dresden,
which came from Africa, which was finely spotted, and of a considerable
height; that those of Europe, especially from Prussia, and other
northern countries are less pleasing to the eye, that their colour is
little, if at all, inclined to white, but rather of a reddish hue,
with spots confused and huddled together. Without absolutely denying
what M. Klein has here advanced, I must declare I could never learn
from any other authority that the lynx is an inhabitant of the warm
climates of Asia and Africa. Kolbe is the only writer who mentions the
lynx as common at the Cape of Good Hope, and as perfectly resembling
that of Brandenburg in Germany; but I have discovered so many mistakes
in the writings of this author, that I never gave much credit to his
testimony, unless when supported by that of others. Now all travellers
mention having seen the spotted lynx in the North of Germany, in
Lithuania, Muscovy, Siberia, Canada, and other northern regions of both
continents; but not one, whose accounts I have read, asserts he met
with this animal in the warm climates of Africa or Asia. The lynxes
of the Levant, Barbary, Arabia, and other hot climates, are, as I
before observed, of one uniform colour, and without spots; they cannot,
therefore, be the same as that mentioned by Klein, which he says was
finely spotted, nor that of Kolbe, which, according to his statement,
perfectly resembled those of Brandenburgh. It would be difficult to
reconcile these testimonies with the information we have from other
hands. The lynx is certainly more common in cold than in temperate
climates, and is at least very rare in hot ones. He was, indeed, known
to the Greeks and Romans; a circumstance which does not, however, infer
that he came from Africa, or the southern provinces of Asia. Pliny, on
the contrary, says, that the first of them which were seen at Rome,
came from Gaul in the time of Pompey. At present there are none in
France, except possibly a few in the Alpine and Pyrenean mountains.
But the Romans, under the name of Gaul, comprehended several of the
northern countries; and, besides, France is not at this time so cold as
it was in those times.
The most beautiful skins of the lynx come from Siberia, as belonging to
the _Loup-cervier_, and from Canada, under the name of _chat-cervier_,
because, like all other animals, they are smaller in the new than in
the old world; and are therefore compared to the wolf in Europe, and
to the cat in Canada. What seems to have deceived M. Klein, and might
have deceived even more able writers is, first, that the ancients have
said that India furnished lynxes to the god Bacchus; secondly, Pliny
has placed the lynx in Ethiopia, and has said their hides and claws
were prepared at Carpathos, now Scarpantho or Zerpantho, an island
in the Mediterranean, between Rhodes and Candia; thirdly, Gesner has
allotted a particular article to the lynx of Asia or Africa, in which
there is the following extract of a letter from Baron Balicze. "You
have not," says he to Gesner, "mentioned in your history of animals,
the Indian or African lynx. As Pliny has mentioned it, the authority
of that great man has induced me to send you a drawing of this animal,
that you may include it in your list. This drawing was made at
Constantinople. This animal is very different from the lynx of Germany,
being much larger, has shorter and rougher hair, &c." Gesner, without
making any reflections on this letter, contents himself with giving the
substance of it, and intimating within a parenthesis, that the drawing
never came to hand.
To prevent a continuance of these errors, let it be observed, first,
that poets and painters have affixed tigers, panthers, and lynxes,
to the car of Bacchus, as best pleased their fancies; or rather
because all fierce and spotted animals were consecrated to that god;
secondly, that it is the word _lynx_ which constitutes the whole of
the ambiguity, since by comparing what Pliny says in one[M] passage
with two others[N] it is plain that the Ethiopian animal which he calls
lynx, is by no means the same as the chaus, or lupus-cervarius, which
comes from the northern countries; and that it was from this name
being improperly applied that the Baron Balicze was deceived though he
considers the Indian lynx as a different animal from the German luchs,
or our lynx. This Indian or African lynx, which he has described as
larger and more full of spots than our lynx, was in all probability,
a kind of panther. However true or erroneous this last conjecture
may be, it appears that the lynx, of which we are now treating, is a
stranger in the southern countries, and is found only in the northern
parts of the new and old continents. Olaus says this animal is common
in the forests of the North of Europe; Olearius, in speaking of
Muscovy, asserts the same thing; Rosinus Lentilius observes that the
lynx is common in Courland and Lithuania, and that those of Cassubia,
a province of Pomerania, are very small, and not so much spotted as
those of Poland and Lithuania; and lastly, Paul Jovius confirms these
testimonies by adding, that the finest skins of the lynx come from
Siberia, and that there is a great traffic carried on with them at
Ustivaga, a town about 600 miles from Moscow.
[Footnote M: Vide Pliny, lib. VIII. cap. 19.]
[Footnote N: Ibid. VIII. c. 22, 23.]
This animal, which as we have shewn, prefers the cold to the temperate
climates, is one of those which might have passed from one continent to
the other through the northern regions, and this is probably the reason
why we find him a tenant of the northern parts of America. Travellers
have described him in such a manner as to preclude all mistake; and
besides its skin forms an article of commerce between Europe and
America. The lynx of Canada, as we have already remarked, is only
smaller and whiter than those of Europe, and it is from this difference
in size that they have been distinguished with the appellation of
_chat-cervier_, and been considered by our nomenclators as animals of a
different species. Without pronouncing decisively upon this question we
shall only observe, that to all appearance the lynxes of Canada and of
Muscovy are of the same species, first because the difference in size
is not very considerable, since it is almost relatively the same as
that which takes place between all animals common to both continents;
the wolf, fox, &c. being smaller in America than they are in Europe, it
cannot be expected to be otherwise with the lynx. Secondly, because,
even in the north of Europe, these animals are found to vary in size;
and authors mention two kinds, the one large and the other small.
Thirdly, because they equally require the same climate, are of the
same dispositions, the same figure, differing only in size, and a
few trifling particulars of colour, circumstances not sufficient to
authorize our pronouncing them to be two distinct species.
The lynx, of which the ancients have said his sight could penetrate
opaque bodies, and whose urine possessed the properly of hardening
into a precious stone, called Lapis Lyncurius, is an animal that never
existed, any more than the properties attributed to him, except in
fable. To the true lynx this imaginary one has no affinity but in name.
We must not, therefore, following the example of most naturalists,
attribute to the former, which is a real being, the properties of this
imaginary one, the existence of which even Pliny himself does not seem
disposed to believe, since he speaks of it as an extraordinary animal,
and classes it with the sphynx, the pegasus, and other prodigies, or
monsters, the produce of Ethiopia, a country with which the ancients
were very little acquainted.
Our lynx, though he cannot see through stone walls, has bright eyes, a
mild aspect, and an agreeable lively appearance. His urine produces not
precious stones, but he covers it with earth, like the cats, to whom he
has a near resemblance, and whose manners, and love of cleanliness are
the same. In nothing is he like the wolf but in a kind of howl, which
being heard at a considerable distance often deceives the hunters, by
making them suppose they hear a real wolf. This alone, perhaps, is
the cause of his having received the appellation of _loup_, and to
distinguish him from the real wolf, and because he attacks the stags,
the epithet of _cervarius_ might have afterwards been added. The lynx
is not so big as the wolf, has shorter legs, and generally about the
size of a fox. He differs from the panther and ounce in the following
particulars; he has longer hair, his spots are less lively, and are
badly disposed; his ears are much longer, and they have tufts of black
hairs at the points; his tail is shorter, and is also black at the end;
his eyes have a whitish cast, and his countenance is more agreeable,
and less ferocious. The skin of the male is more spotted than that of
the female. He does not run like the wolf, but walks and bounds like
the cat. He lives upon other animals, and those he pursues to the
tops of the highest trees, so that neither the wild-cat, pine-weasel,
ermine, nor squirrel, can escape him. He also seizes birds, lies in
wait for the stag, roe-buck, and hare, whom he seizes by the throat,
sucks their blood, and then opens their heads to devour the brains;
this done he frequently abandons them to go in search of fresh prey,
and is seldom known to return to the former one; which has given rise
to the remark, that of all animals the lynx has the shortest memory.
His colour changes with the climate and the season. In winter his fur
is much better than in summer, and his flesh, like that of all beasts
of prey, is not good to eat.
SUPPLEMENT.
There is a Canadian Lynx in the Royal Cabinet in France, in fine
preservation; it is only two feet three inches long, and rather more
than thirteen inches high; its body is covered with long grey hair,
striped with yellow, and spotted with black; its head also is grey,
interspersed with white and yellow hairs, and shaded with a kind of
black stripes; it has long white whiskers; its ears are more than two
inches high, white on the inside, with yellow edges, the outside of a
mouse colour, edged with black, and at the tip of each ear is a tuft
of black hair seven lines high; it has a short tail, which is black
from the end to about the middle, and the other part is of a reddish
white; its belly, hind-legs, inside of the fore-legs and feet are of a
dirty white, and it has long white claws. This lynx strongly resembles
the one we have just described, except in the length of the tail and
tuft on the ears, from which we may infer that the Canadian Lynx is a
variety from that of the old continent.
Pontoppidan describes the lynx of Norway to be white with deep spots,
and claws like those of a cat; he says there are four species there,
some being like the wolf, others the fox, others the cat, and others
with a head like that of a colt; the last of which is not only doubtful
in itself, but throws a degree of suspicion on the veracity of the
remainder.
The species of the lynx is very common throughout Europe, and also in
the northern provinces of Asia. Their skins are very valuable, and much
esteemed for muffs, &c. in Norway, Russia, and even as far as China,
and notwithstanding they are very common, they sell at a high price.
THE CARACAL.
Though the Caracal[O] resembles the lynx in size, formation of the
body, aspect, and the tufts of black hair at the extremities of the
ears, I do not scruple from their disagreement in other respects, to
treat of them as animals of a different species. The Caracal is not
spotted like the lynx; his hair is rougher and shorter; his tail is
longer, and of a uniform colour; his snout is longer, in aspect he
is less mild, and in disposition more fierce. The lynx inhabits cold
and at most temperate climates, while the caracal is to be found only
in the warmest countries. It is as much from these differences of
disposition and climate, that I judge them to be of different species,
as from the inspection and comparison of the two animals, both of which
I have examined and had designed from life.
[Footnote O: In Turkey it is called Kaarah-kula; Arabia Gat el Challah;
in Persia Siyah-Gush, denoting in all three languages, _the cat with
long ears_.]
The Caracal is common in Barbary, in Arabia, and in all those countries
inhabited by the lion, panther, and ounce. Like them he depends on prey
for subsistence, but from the inferiority of his size and strength,
he has much difficulty to procure a sufficiency; frequently being
obliged to be content with the leavings of the more powerful. He keeps
at a distance from the panther, because that animal exercises its
cruelty after being gorged with food; but he follows the lion, who,
when the cravings of his appetite are satisfied, never injures any
creature. From the remains left by this noble animal, the caracal not
unoften enjoys a comfortable repast. Sometimes he follows, or even
goes before, at no great distance, taking a refuge in the trees, when
self-preservation renders it necessary, and where the lion cannot, like
the panther, follow him. For all these reasons it is that the caracal
has been called the Lion's Guide, or Provider; and it is said that the
lion, whose smell is far from being acute, employs him to scent out his
prey, and is permitted to enjoy the remains as a reward for his trouble.
The caracal[P] (_fig. 108._) is about the size of a fox, but more
fierce, and much stronger. He has been known to attack, and in a few
minutes, to tear in pieces a large dog, which defended himself to the
utmost. He is very difficult to tame, yet if taken very young, and
reared with care, he may be trained to the chace, to which he is by
nature inclined, and in which he is very successful, especially if he
be only let loose upon such animals as are inferior in strength, for
he declines a service of danger with every expression of reluctance.
In India they made use of him to catch hares, rabbits, and even large
birds, whom he seizes with singular address and facility.
[Footnote P: The principal part of his body is of a reddish brown
colour, the inferior parts of the neck and belly whitish; round his
muzzle black, his ears of a dark shade, with a tuft of black hair from
his extremities.]
SUPPLEMENT.
Mr. Bruce has informed me that he saw a caracal in Nubia, which
differed from the one of barbary, just described; his face was more
round, his ears black on the outside, intermixed with white hairs, and
on the breast, belly, and inside of the thighs he had yellow spots. But
this is a mere variety, of which there are several: for instance, in
Lybia there is a caracal with white ears, and a white tail with four
black rings at the end, and which is not bigger than a domestic cat;
and if this were to establish a difference we might say there are two
species of caracals in Barbary, the one large, with black ears and long
tufts, and the other smaller, with white ears and short tufts.
THE HYÆNA.
Aristotle has left us two accounts by which alone the hyæna (_fig.
110._) might easily be distinguished from all other animals.
Nevertheless, travellers and naturalists have confounded him with no
less than four other species, namely, the jackall, glutton, civet, and
the baboon; all of which are carnivorous and ferocious like the hyæna,
and all have some few particular resemblances to him, whence these
errors may have originated. The jackall inhabits the same countries,
and like the hyæna resembles the wolf in form; like him also he feeds
upon dead carcasses, and digs up graves to devour their contents. The
glutton has the same voracity, the same appetite for corrupted flesh,
the same propensity for digging the dead out of their graves; and
though he belongs to a different climate, and his figure is widely
different from that of the hyæna, yet from this affinity of disposition
authors have thought themselves warranted in considering them as of
the same species. The civet is a native of the same countries as the
hyæna, and like him has a streak of long hair along the back, and also
a particular opening, or glandular pouch; characteristics which belong
only to a few animals, and which induced Bellon to suppose the civet
was the hyæna of the ancients. As to the baboon, which has hands and
feet like those of a man or a monkey, he resembles the hyæna still less
than the other three, and it must be solely from their name that they
have been confounded together.
The hyæna, according to Dr. Shaw, is called _dubbah_ in Barbary; and
Marmol, and Leo Africanus, say, the baboon is distinguished by the name
of _dabuh_; and as the baboon belongs to the same climates, scratches
up the earth and is nearly of the same form with the hyæna; these
circumstances first deceived travellers, and naturalists adopted their
blunders without investigation; and even those who distinguished the
two animals, retained the name of _dabuh_ to the hyæna, which in fact
belongs to the baboon. It appears, then, that the hyæna is neither the
_dabuh_ of the Arabians, the _jesef_ or _sesef_ of the Africans, nor
the _deeb_ of Barbary. But to put a final stop to this confusion of
names, I shall give, in a few words, the substance of the inquiries I
have made with respect to those animals.
Aristotle calls it by two names, _hyæna_ and _glanus_; names which
we may be assured are applied to the same animals by comparing the
passages wherein they are mentioned.[Q] The ancient Latins retained the
name hyæna, and never adopted that of glanus. In the writings of the
modern Latins, however, we find the _ganus_, or _gannus_, and _belbus_
employed as names for the hyæna. According to Rasis, the Arabians call
it _kabo_, or _zabo_, names that appear to be derived from the word
_zeeb_, which, in their language denominates a wolf. In Barbary the
hyæna bears the name of _dubbah_, as appears from the description given
of this animal by Dr. Shaw.[R] In Turkey it is called _zirtlaat_,
according to Nieremberg; in Persia _kaftaar_, as stated by Kæmpfer; and
_castar_, according to Pietro della Valle. These are the only names
which seem actually to refer to the hyæna; though it is nevertheless
probable that the _lycaon_ and the _crocuta_ of India and Ethiopia,
of which the ancients speak, are no other than the hyæna. Porphyry
expressly says that the _crocuta_ of the Indies is the hyæna of the
Greeks; and, indeed, all they have written, whether true or fabulous,
respecting the lycaon and crocuta, bears some analogy to the nature of
the hyæna. But we shall make no further conjectures on this subject
until we treat of fabulous animals, and the affinities they have with
real ones.
[Footnote Q: Aristotle Hist. Animal. lib. vi. c. 32. lib. viii. c. 5.]
[Footnote R: The Dubbah is nearly the size of the wolf. Its neck is so
exceedingly stiff, that when it offers to look behind, or even on one
side, it is obliged to turn the whole body, like the hog, the badger,
and the crocodile. Its colour is somewhat inclined to a reddish brown,
with a few brown streaks of a darker hue, it has very long hairs on
the neck which it can occasionally erect. Its paws are large and well
armed, with which it digs up plants, and sometimes dead bodies from
their graves. Next to the lion and panther, the dubbah is the most
fierce of all the animals of Barbary. As it is furnished with a mane,
has a difficulty in turning the head, and scrapes up dead bodies
from their graves, it has every appearance of being the hyæna of the
ancients. _See Shaw's Travels._]
The panther of the Greeks, the _lupus canarius_ of Gaza, and the
_lupus armenius_ of the modern Latins and Arabians, seem to be the
same animal, that is, the jackall, which the Turks call _cical_,
according to Pollux, and _thacal_ according to Spon and Wheeler; which
the modern Greeks distinguish by the name of _zachalia_, the Persians
_siechal_, or _schachal_, and the Moors of Barbary _deeb_; that of
jackall, however, having been adopted by a number of travellers, to
that we shall give the preference, and only remark at present, that he
differs from the hyæna not only in size, figure, and colour, but in
natural habits, for the hyæna is a solitary animal, while the jackall
is seldom seen but in troops. After the example of Kæmpfer, some of our
nomenclators have called the jackall _lupus aureus_, because his hair
is of a lively yellow hue.
It is therefore evident, that the jackall is a very different animal
from the hyæna; and no less so than the glutton, which is an animal
confined to the northern regions of Lapland, Russia, and Siberia; it is
a stranger even in the temperate climates, and therefore could never
have inhabited Arabia, or any of the other warm countries in which
the hyæna resides. It differs also in form, for the glutton bears a
strong resemblance to a very large badger; his legs are so short that
his belly almost reaches the ground; he has five toes on each of his
feet, has no mane, and his body is covered with black hair, excepting
sometimes a few reddish yellow hairs upon his sides; in short, he
resembles him in nothing but in being exceedingly voracious. He was
unknown to the ancients, who had made no great progress into the north
of Europe. Olaus is the first author who mentions this animal and
from his prodigious gluttony he called him _gulo_. In Sclavonia he
afterwards obtained the name of _rosomak_, and in Germany _jerff_,
or _wildfras_, and the French travellers have called him _glouton_.
There are varieties in this species, as well as in that of the jackall,
which we shall speak of when we come to the particular history of those
animals, and shall only here observe, that those varieties, instead
of assimilating them with the hyæna, render them additionally a more
distinct species.
The civet has nothing in common with the hyæna but the glandular pouch,
under the tail, and the mane along the neck and back-bone. It differs
from the hyæna in figure and size, not being more than half as large;
his ears are short and covered with hair, whereas those of the hyæna
are long and naked; he has also short legs, and five toes upon each
foot, while the legs of the hyæna are long, and he has only four toes
upon each foot; nor does the civet dig up the earth in search for
dead bodies. From these differences these animals are easily to be
distinguished from each other.
With respect to the baboon, which is the _papio_ of the Latins, and
as we have before observed, has been mistaken for the hyæna, merely
from the ambiguity of names, which seems to have arisen from a passage
of Leo Africanus, and since copied by Marmol. "The _dabuh_ say
these authors, is of the size and form of the wolf; and scratches up
dead bodies from their graves." From which it was supposed to mean
the _dubbah_, or hyæna, although it is expressly stated in the same
passages that the _dubbah_ has hands and feet resembling those of
a man; a remark which, however applicable to the baboon, cannot be
applied to the hyæna.
From taking a view of the _lupus-marinus_ of Bellon, which Gesner has
copied, we might mistake it for the figure of the hyæna, to which it
bears a great resemblance; but his description corresponds not with our
hyæna, for he says, the _lupus-marinus_ is an amphibious animal which
feeds on fish, and has sometimes been seen on the coasts of the British
ocean; besides this author says nothing of the peculiar characteristics
which distinguish the hyæna from all other animals. It is possible
that Bellon, prepossessed with the notion that the civet was the hyæna
of the ancients, has given the figure of the real one under the name
of _lupus-marinus_, for so striking and singular are the characters
of that animal, that it is hardly possible to be deceived in them; he
is, perhaps, the only quadruped that has four toes upon each foot.
Like the badger he has an aperture under the tail, which does not
penetrate into the body; his ears are long, straight, and naked; his
head is shorter and more square than that of the wolf; his legs are
longer, especially the hind ones; his eyes are placed like those of
the dog; the hair of his body and mane is of a dark grey, with a small
intermixture of yellow and black, and disposed all along in waves,
and though in size he equals the wolf, yet he has, nevertheless, a
contracted appearance.
This wild and solitary animal resides in the caverns of mountains,
the clefts of rocks, or in dens, which he forms for himself under
the earth. Though taken ever so young he is not to be tamed; he is
naturally ferocious. He lives like the wolf, by depredation, but he
is more strong and daring. He sometimes attacks men, and darts with a
ferocious resolution on all kinds of cattle; he follows the flocks,
and even breaks down the sheep-folds in the night to get at his prey.
His eyes shine in the dark, and it is asserted that he sees better
by night than day. All naturalists who have treated of this animal,
except Kæmpfer, say, that his cry resembles the noise of a man who is
vomiting, while the latter asserts it to be like the lowing of a calf.
He defends himself against the lion, stands in no awe of the panther,
and attacks the ounce, which is incapable of resisting him. When at a
loss for prey he scrapes up the earth with his feet, and tears out the
carcasses of animals and men, which in the countries he inhabits are
promiscuously buried in the fields. He is found in almost all the hot
climates of Africa and Asia, and it is probable that the animal called
_farasse_, at Madagascar, which resembles the wolf in figure, but is
larger and stronger, is the same animal.
Of this animal more absurd stories have been told than of any other.
The ancients have gravely written that the hyæna is alternately male
and female; that when it brings forth, suckles and rears its progeny,
it remains as a female the whole year, but the year following it
resumes the functions of the male, and obliges its companion to submit
to those of the female. The circumstance which gave rise to this fable
is plainly the orifice under the tail, in both males and females,
independently of the organs of generation peculiar to both sexes,
and which are the same in the hyæna as in all other animals. It has
also been affirmed that this animal could imitate the human voice,
remember the names of shepherds, call upon, fascinate, and render
them motionless; that he can terrify shepherdesses, cause them to
forget and neglect their flocks, to be distracted in love, &c. All this
might surely happen without the intervention of the hyæna! But I shall
conclude here, to avoid the reproach which has been cast upon Pliny,
that of taking pleasure in compiling and relating absurd fables.
SUPPLEMENT.
At the fair of St. Germain, in the year 1773, I saw a male hyæna; the
one just described was very ferocious, and as I mentioned untameable,
but this was perfectly gentle, for though his keeper made him angry for
the purpose of erecting his mane, yet he seemed to forget it in a few
moments, and suffer himself to be played with without any appearance of
dislike. He exactly accorded with the description I have given, except
his tail being entirely white.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 109. _Lynx._]
[Illustration: FIG. 110. _Hyæna._]
In the island of Meroë there is a large kind of hyænas, so strong that
they can run off with a man to the distance of more than a league
without stopping. These are also of a darker colour, and erect their
long hairs on the hind parts and not the front. Mr. Bruce informs
me that he has observed, that when the hyænas are forced to take to
flight, they are at first exceedingly lame of the left hind leg, and
which continues for more than an hundred paces, so much so indeed as to
give them the appearance of falling, and that it is the same also with
those of Syria and Barbary.
THE CIVET AND THE ZIBET.
The generality of naturalists are of opinion that the perfume called
civet, or musk, is furnished only by one species of animals. I
have, however, seen two animals that furnish it, which, though they
have many essential affinities, both in their external and internal
conformations, yet differ in so many characteristics, that there is
sufficient reason to consider them as two distinct species. To the
first I have continued the original name of Civet, (_fig. 111._) and
the second, for the sake of distinction, I have called Zibet (_fig.
113._) The civet seems to be the same as that described by the Academy
of Sciences; by Caius, in Gesner, page 837, and by Fabius Columna,
who has given both the male and female figures in the publication of
Faber, which follows that of Hernandes. The _zibet_ appears to be the
same animal as M. de la Peyronnie has described under the name of Musk
Animal, in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences for the year 1731.
Both differ from the civet in the very same characters; both want the
mane, or the long hair, on the back-bone, and both have the tail marked
with strong annular streaks. The civet, on the contrary, has a mane,
but no rings on the tail. It must, however be acknowledged that our
zibet, and the musk animal of M. de la Peyronnie, are not so perfectly
similar as to leave no doubt of the identity of their species. The
rings on the tail of the zibet are larger than those of the musk
animal, and the length of his tail is shorter in proportion to that
of his body; but these differences are slight, and appear to be mere
accidental varieties, to which the civet must be more subject than any
other wild animal, as they are reared and fed like domestic ones in
many parts of the Levant and East Indies. Certain it is, that our zibet
bears a stronger resemblance to the musk animal than to the civet, and
consequently they may be considered as the same species. Nor, indeed,
do we mean positively to affirm that civet and zibet are not varieties
of the same species, but from their different characteristics there is
a strong presumption they really are so.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 111. _Civet_]
[Illustration: FIG. 112. _Genet_]
[Illustration: FIG. 113. _Zibet_]
The animal which we here name the Civet, is called the _falanoue_, at
Madagascar, _nzime_, or _nzfusi_ at Congo, _kankan_ in Ethiopia, and
_kastor_ in Guinea. That it is the civet of Guinea I am certain, for
the one I had was sent from Guinea, to one of my correspondents at St.
Domingo, where, after being fed for some time, it was killed for the
more easy conveyance to Europe.
The zibet is probably the civet of Asia, of the East Indies, and of
Arabia, where he is called zebet, or zibet, an Arabic word, which
likewise signifies the perfume of that animal, and which we have
adopted to signify the animal itself. He differs from the civet in
having a longer and less thick body; a snout more thin and slender,
and somewhat concave on the upper part; whereas that of the civet is
more short, thick, and rather convex. The ears of the zibet are also
larger and more elevated; his tail is longer, and more strongly marked;
his hair is shorter and much more soft; he has no mane, or long hair
on the neck or back-bone; no black spots under the eyes, or on the
cheeks; all of which are remarkable characteristics in the civet. Some
travellers have suspected there were two species of civets; but no
person has examined them with sufficient accuracy as to give a distinct
description. I have seen both; and after a careful comparison, am of
opinion, that they not only differ in species, but perhaps belong to
different climates.
These animals have been called musk-cats, though they have nothing in
common with the cat, except bodily agility. They rather resemble the
fox, especially in the head. Their skins are diversified with stripes
and spots, which has occasioned them to be mistaken for small panthers,
when seen at a distance; but in every other respect they differ from
the panther. There is an animal called the Genet, which is spotted in
the like manner, whose head is nearly of the same shape, and which,
like the civet, has a pouch where an odoriferous humor is formed; but
this animal is smaller than our civet; its legs are shorter, and its
body thinner; its perfume is very faint, and of short duration; while
the perfume of the civet is very strong, and that of the zibet is so to
an excess.
This humor is found in the orifice which these animals have near the
organs of generation; it is nearly as thick as pomatum, and though the
odour is very strong, it is yet agreeable, even when it issues from the
body of the animal. This perfume of the civet must not be confounded
with musk, which is a sanguineous humor, obtained from an animal very
different from either the civet or zibet, being a species of roe-buck,
or goat, without horns, and which has no one property in common with
the civet, but that of furnishing a strong perfume.
These two species of civets have not been distinguished with precision.
They have both been sometimes confounded with the weasel of Virginia,
the genet, the musk-deer, and even with the hyæna. Bellon, who has
given a figure and description of the civet, insists that it was the
hyæna of the ancients, and his mistake is the more excusable not being
destitute of some foundation. Certain it is, that most of the fables
which have been related of the hyæna, took their rise from the civet.
The philters said to have been obtained from certain parts of the
hyæna, and their power to excite love, sufficiently indicate that the
stimulating virtues of the preparations of civet, were not unknown to
the ancients, and which are still used for this very purpose in the
East. What they have said of the uncertainty of the sex of the hyæna,
is still more applicable to the civet, for the male has no external
appearance, but three apertures so perfectly similar to those of
the female, that it is hardly possible to determine the sex but by
dissection. The opening which contains the perfume, is situated between
the other two, and in the same direct line which extends from the os
sacrum to the pubis.
Another error, which has made more progress, is that of Gregoire de
Bolivar, with respect to the climates in which the civet is found.
After stating them to be common in Africa and the East Indies, he
positively affirms they are also very numerous in all parts of South
America. This assertion, transmitted by Faber, has been copied by
Aldrovandus, and adopted by all the authors who have since treated
of the civet. But the truth is, that they are animals peculiar to
the hottest climates of the old continent, and which could not have
found a northern passage into the New World; where, in fact, no civets
ever existed until they were transported thither from the Philippine
Islands and the coasts of Africa. As the assertion of Bolivar is
positive, and mine only negative, it is necessary I should give my
particular reasons, to prove the falsity of the fact. Besides my own
remarks, I refer to the very words of Faber himself.[S] On this head
it is to be observed, that the figure given by Faber, was left to him
by Recchi, without any description[T]; and of which the inscription
is, _animal zibethicum Americanum_; but this figure has no resemblance
to the civet or zibet, and rather represents the badger; secondly,
Faber gives a description and the figures of a male and female civet,
which resemble our zibet; but these civets are not the same animal as
that represented in the first figure; nor do they represent animals of
America, but civets belonging to the old continent, of which Fabius
Columna had procured drawings at Naples, and furnished Faber with
their figures and descriptions; thirdly, after having quoted Bolivar
respecting the climates in which the civet is found, Faber concludes
with admiring Bolivar's prodigious memory, and that he was indebted
for this recital to the oral information of that gentleman. These
three remarks are alone sufficient to create a suspicion respecting the
pretended _animal zibethicum Americanum_, but what completely proves
the error, Fernandes, in his description of the animals of America,
flatly contradicts Bolivar, and affirms that the civet was not a native
of America, but that, in his time, they had began to transport some
of them from the Philippine Islands to New Spain. In fine, if we add
this positive testimony of Fernandes, to that of all the travellers,
who mention that civets are very common in the Philippine Islands, in
the East Indies, and in Africa, not one of whom intimates having seen
this animal in America, every doubt will vanish of what we advanced
in our enumeration of the animals of the two continents, and it will
be admitted that the civet is not a native of America, but an animal
peculiar to the warm climates of the old continent, and that he was
never found in the new, until after he had been transported thither.
Had I not guarded against such mistakes, which are too frequent, I
should have described my civet as an American animal, from its having
been sent to me from St. Domingo, and not directly from Guinea, the
place of its nativity, of which I was, however, assured by the letter
from M. Pages which accompanied the animal. These particular facts
I consider as confirmations to the general position, that there is a
real difference between all the animals of the southern parts of each
continent.
[Footnote S: Novæ Hisp. Anim. Nardi Antonii Recchi Imagines & Nomina,
Joannis Fabri Lyncei Expositione, p. 539.]
[Footnote T: _Ibid._ p. 465.]
Both the civet and zibet are then animals of the old continent, nor
have they any other external differences, besides those already
pointed out; and as to their internal differences, and the structure
of their reservoirs which contain the perfume, they have been so
accurately described by Messrs. Morand and Peyronnie, in the Memoirs
of the Academy for 1728 and 1731, that I could do little more than
give a repetition of their accounts. With regard to what remains to be
further observed of those two animals, as the few facts are hardly more
applicable to the one than the other, and as it would be difficult to
point out the distinction, I shall collect the whole under one head.
The civets, (by the plural number I mean the civet and zibet) though
natives of the hottest climates of Asia and Africa, can yet live in
temperate and even cold countries, provided they are carefully defended
from the injuries of the weather, and supplied with succulent food. In
Holland they are frequently reared for the advantage obtained by their
perfume. The civet brought from Amsterdam is preferred to that which
comes from the Levant or the Indies, as being the most genuine. That
imported from Guinea would be the best, were it not that the Negroes,
as well as the Indians, and the people of the Levant, adulterate it
with the mixture of storax, and other balsamic and odoriferous drugs
and plants.
Those who keep these animals collect the perfume in the following
manner; they put them into a narrow cage, in which they cannot turn
themselves; this cage opens behind, and two or three times in a
week the animal is drawn a little out by the tail, and kept in that
position by putting a bar across the fore-part of the cage; this done,
the person takes out the perfume from the pouch with a small spoon,
scraping all the internal parts, and then, putting the matter into a
vessel, the greatest care is taken to keep it closely covered. The
quantity so procured depends greatly upon the appetite of the animal,
and the quality of his nourishment, as he always produces more in
proportion to the goodness of his food. Hashed flesh, eggs, rice, small
animals, birds, young poultry, and particularly fish, are the best, and
which he most prefers; and these ought to be so varied as to excite his
appetite and preserve his health. He requires but little water, and
though he drinks seldom, yet he discharges urine very frequently; and
even on such occasions, the male is not to be distinguished from the
female.
The perfume of the civets is so strong that it communicates itself to
all parts of the body; the hair and skin is impregnated with it to
such a degree, that it preserves the odour for a long time after it is
stripped off. If a person be shut up in a close room with one of them
alive, he cannot support the perfume, it is so copiously diffused. When
the animal is enraged, its scent is more violent than ordinary, and if
tormented so as to make him sweat, that is also collected and serves
to adulterate, or at least increase the perfume which is otherwise
obtained.
The civets are naturally wild, and even ferocious; and though tameable
to a certain degree, they are never perfectly familiar. Their teeth are
strong and sharp, but their claws are blunt and feeble. They are light
and active, and live by prey, pursuing small animals, and surprising
birds. They can bound like cats, and run like dogs; and sometimes steal
into yards and out-houses to carry off the poultry. Their eyes shine
in the dark, and they probably see better in the night than in the
day. When they fail in procuring animal food, they subsist on roots
and fruits. As they seldom drink they never inhabit moist places, but
cheerfully reside among arid sands and burning mountains. They breed
very fast in their native climates; but though they can live, and even
produce perfume in temperate climates, yet they cannot multiply. They
have a voice more powerful, and a tongue less rough than the cat, and
their cry is not unlike that of an enraged dog.
The odorous humor which exudes from these animals is called civet in
England and France, and _zibet_, or _algalia_, in Arabia, the Indies,
and the Levant, where it is more used than in Europe. It is now very
little employed as a medicine, but it is still used as an ingredient
in the compositions of perfumers and confectioners. The smell of the
civet, though stronger, is more agreeable than that of the musk. Both,
however, lost their repute when the method of preparing ambergris was
discovered; and even that seems now to be proscribed from the toilets
of the polite and delicate.
THE GENET.
The Genet (_fig. 112._) is a smaller animal than the civet. He has a
long body, short legs, a sharp snout, slender head, and smooth soft
hair, of a glossy ash colour, marked with black spots, which are round,
and separated on the sides, but so nearly united on the back as to have
the appearance of stripes along the body. Upon the neck and back it has
a kind of mane, which forms a black streak from the head to the tail,
the latter of which is as long as the body, and is marked with seven
or eight rings, alternately black and white; the black spots on the
neck also appear to form streaks, and it has a white spot under each
eye. Under the tail, and in the very same place with the civets, it has
a pouch, in which is secreted a kind of perfume, but is much weaker,
and its scent soon evaporates. It is somewhat longer than the marten,
which it greatly resembles in form, habit, and disposition; and from
which it seems chiefly to differ in being more easily tamed. Bellon
assures us, that he has seen them in the houses at Constantinople as
tame as cats, that they were permitted to run about without doing
the least mischief, and that they were called _Constantinople cats_;
_Spanish cats_; _genet cats_, _&c._ though, indeed, they have nothing
in common with that animal, except the skill of watching and catching
mice.[U] Naturalists pretend that genets inhabit only moist grounds,
and reside along the banks of rivers, and that they are never found on
mountains or dry grounds. The species is not numerous, or, at least,
not much diffused; for there are none of them in any part of Europe,
except Spain and Turkey. They seem to require a warm climate to subsist
and multiply in, and yet they are not found in India or Africa. The
_fossane_ has been called the genet of Madagascar, but that animal is
of a different species, as will hereafter be shewn.
[Footnote U: It is, perhaps, because they are only found in the Levant
and in Spain, that they are designated by their country; for the name
of _genet_ is not derived from any of the ancient languages, and is
probably only a new appellation taken from some place abounding with
them, a custom which is very common in Spain, where a certain race of
horses are called _genets_.]
The skin of the genet makes a light and handsome fur, it was
formerly fashionable for muffs, and consequently very dear; but the
manufacturers having got the art of counterfeiting them, by painting
the skins of grey rabbits with black spots, their value is abated,
from being no longer esteemed.
SUPPLEMENT.
I formerly stated that genets were not to be found in any parts of
Europe, except Spain and Turkey, but since then I have learned that
they are common in the southern provinces of France, and that at
Poitou they are known by that name even to the peasantry. In April,
1775, the Abbé Roubard sent me a genet that was killed at Livray, in
Poitou, which, except some trifling variations in the colour of the
hair, was similar to that I have described; and he assured me that the
species was also to be found in the neighbouring provinces; and M.
Delpeche informed me, in a letter, that it was a constant practice with
the peasants of the province of Rouergue to bring dead genets to the
merchants in the winter; he added, that they were not very numerous,
that they were principally found near Villefranche, and that they
burrow in holes like the rabbits, especially in winter.
THE BLACK WOLF.
We mention ibis animal merely as a supplement to the description we
have given of the wolf, for there can be little doubt of his belonging
to the same species. We have already said, that in the northern parts
of Europe there were some wolves black, and others white, and that the
black wolves were generally the largest; but the one we are now about
to describe came from Canada, and was smaller than the common wolf;
but we have had repeated occasions to remark, that the animals of the
northern parts of America are less in size than those belonging to the
north of Europe, and this difference in size was the chief, if not the
only variation in him; besides, he had been taken very young, and ever
after kept in a state of captivity, which also might have prevented the
completion of his growth. Our common wolf is less in Canada than in
Europe; and in that country black wolves and foxes are not uncommon. We
saw this animal alive, and to us it appeared perfectly to resemble the
common wolf both in figure and disposition.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 115. _Muscovy Rat._]
[Illustration: FIG. 114. _Canadian Musk Rat._]
[Illustration: FIG. 116. _Mexican Hog._]
THE CANADIAN MUSK-RAT, AND THE MUSCOVY MUSK-RAT.
Though these two animals have been denominated musk-rats, and have
a few common characteristics, yet they ought not to be confounded;
they must also be distinguished from the Pilori, or Musk-rat, of
the Antilles; all three forming different species, and belonging to
different climates; the first, also called Ondatra, is found in Canada;
the second, or Desman, in Lapland and Muscovy; and the Pilori, in
Martinico and other of the Antille islands.
The Musk-rat of Canada (_fig. 115._) differs from that of Muscovy
in having all its toes separate, eyes very conspicuous, and a short
nose; whereas the latter (_fig. 114._) has the toes of the hind feet
united by a membrane, exceedingly small eyes, and a long nose like the
shrew-mouse. The tail of both is flat, in which, as well as in many
other characteristics, they differ from the pilori of the Antilles. The
tail of the pilori is short, and, like that of other rats, cylindrical;
the other two have long tails, and the head of the first is like that
of a water-rat, and the head of the second resembles a shrew-mouse.
In the memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, for 1725, we meet with a
very accurate description of the Canadian musk-rat. M. Sarrasin, a
correspondent of the Academy, dissected a number of them at Quebec, and
made some striking and singular remarks; by comparing his description
with our own, we have not the least doubt but the animal which he calls
the musk-rat of Canada, is the same with that now before us.
This animal is of the size of a small rabbit, and of the figure of
a rat. Its head is short, and similar to that of the water-rat; its
hair is soft and glossy, with a thick down underneath, like that of
the beaver; its tail is long and covered with little scales, like that
of the other rats, though of a different form, for instead of being
cylindrical it is flat from the middle to the tip, and rather round at
the insertion. The toes are not united by membranes, but furnished
with a long thick hair, which enables the animal to swim with ease. Its
ears are very short, but not naked, as in the common rat, but covered
with hair, both outwardly and inwardly; its eyes are large; it has two
incisive teeth, about an inch long, in the under jaw, and two shorter
ones in the upper; these four teeth are very strong, and by them the
animal is enabled to gnaw through wood.
The striking singularities remarked by M. Sarrasin, in this animal
are, first, the muscular force and great expansibility in the skin,
which enables the animal to contract and compress its body into a
smaller size. Secondly, the suppleness of the false ribs, which admits
a contraction of body so considerable that the musk-rat can obtain an
easy passage through holes where smaller animals cannot find admission.
Thirdly, the manner in which the female voids her urine, the urethra
not terminating, as in other animals, under the clitoris, but at a
hairy eminence above the os pubis, and in which there is an orifice,
that serves the urine to escape. This strange organization is found in
only a few species of animals, as rats and apes have three apertures;
and these two are perhaps the only animals who have a passage for the
urine distinct from the organs of generation: to the females alone,
however, does this singularity belong, for the conformation of the
males is the same with that of other quadrupeds. M. Sarrasin observes,
fourthly, that the testicles which, as in other rats, are situated
on each side of the anus, become exceedingly large, considering the
size of the animal, during the rutting season; but that over, they not
only change in size, consistency, and colour, but even in situation,
and with the seminal vessels, and all the organs of generation become
almost invisible. And, lastly, that the vessels which contain the
musk, or perfume, of this animal, under the form of a milky humor, and
which adjoin the parts of generation, undergo the same changes; that
during the rutting season they enlarge in a great degree, and then the
perfume is exceedingly strong, and may be sensibly distinguished at
a considerable distance, but at its expiration they become wrinkled,
decay, and at length entirely disappear. The change in the vessels,
which contain the perfume, is effected more quickly, and more
completely, than that of the parts of generation. These vessels are
common to both sexes, and at the above periods contain a considerable
quantity of milky humor; and the secretion is formed, and the humor
voided, nearly in the same place as the urine of other quadrupeds.
These singularities were worthy the attention of so able an anatomist
as M. Sarrasin. We have already mentioned similar alterations in the
parts of generation in the water-rat, the campagnol, and the mole; but
this is not the place for us to enlarge on the general consequences
which might be drawn from these singular facts, nor even on the
immediate references they may have to our theory of generation. These
we shall soon have occasion to present with more advantage, by uniting
them with other facts to which they relate.
As the Canadian musk-rat belongs to the same country as the beaver, is
fond of water, and has nearly the same figure, colour, and hair, they
have been often compared to each other; it is even affirmed, that, at
the first glance, a full grown musk-rat may be mistaken for a beaver
of a month old. But in the form of their tails there is a considerable
difference; that of the beaver being oval and flat horizontally;
whereas that of the musk-rat is of a considerable length, and flat,
or compressed vertically. In disposition and instinct, however,
these animals have a strong resemblance. The musk-rats, as well as
the beavers, live in societies during the winter. They form little
dwellings about two feet and a half in diameter and sometimes larger,
in which is often an association of several families. These habitations
are not for the purpose of resorting to, in order to sleep like the
marmots, for five or six months, but to obtain a shelter from the
inclemency of the weather; they are of a round form, and covered with a
dome about a foot thick; the materials for making which are herbs and
rushes interwoven together, and cemented with clay, which they prepare
with their feet; these huts are impenetrable by the rain, and secured
from the effects of inundations by being elevated on the inside, and
tho' covered with snow several feet thick in the winter these animals
do not seem to be incommoded by this circumstance. They do not provide
a stock of provisions for that season, but dig a sort of passages
round their dwellings, for the purpose of procuring roots and water.
As winter is not their season of love, they reap but little advantage
from associating. All this period they remain totally deprived of
light, and therefore no sooner has the mild breath of spring begun to
dissolve the snow, and uncover the tops of their little mansions, than
the huntsmen open their dome suddenly, dazzle them with the light,
and kill or seize all those who have not obtained shelter in their
subterraneous passages; but as their skins are valuable, and their
flesh not unpalatable, thither they are also pursued for slaughter.
Such as escape quit their habitations about the same time. They wander
about during the summer but always in pairs, for then is the time of
their amours; then it is that all their vessels expand, and feeding
largely upon the fresh roots and vegetables which the season affords,
they acquire a strong smell of musk; a scent which, though agreeable
to Europeans, is so disgustful to the savages, that they distinguish
one of their rivers, from being frequented by a number of them, the
Stinking River, and the animal itself the Stinkard.
They produce once a year, and generally have five or six young. Their
time of gestation cannot be long, as they are not in season till the
summer, and their young are full grown by October, when they seek for
shelter; they construct new huts every year, and are never known to
revisit their former habitations. Their cry is a kind of groan, which
the huntsmen imitate in order to allure them. So strong are their
fore-teeth, and so calculated for gnawing, that if shut up in a box,
they soon make a hole large enough to escape through, a faculty which
they possess in common with the beaver. They do not swim so fast, or
so long as the beaver, and are often seen upon the ground; they run
very indifferently, and in their walk they waddle like a goose. Their
skin retains the smell of musk, which renders it of little value to the
furriers, but their under hair, or down, is used in the manufacture
of hats. These animals are not very wild, and when taken young are
easily tamed; and are then tolerably handsome, for their tail, which
is afterwards long and disagreeable, is very short. They play with all
the innocence and sprightliness of young cats, and they might be reared
with ease but for their disagreeable smell.
The Canadian and Muscovy musk-rats, are the only animals belonging to
the northern regions which yield any perfume, for the odour of the
_castoreum_ (obtained from the badger) is highly disagreeable; and it
is only in warm climates that we meet with the animals which furnish
the real musk, the civet, and other delicate perfumes.
The musk-rat of Muscovy might, perhaps, present singularities analogous
to those of the Canadian, and not less remarkable, but it does not
appear that any naturalist has yet had an opportunity to dissect, or
examine it alive. Of its exterior form alone we can speak, as that
sent from Lapland, for the king's cabinet, was in a dry state, and
therefore I can only add my regret that so little is known about it.
THE PECCARI, OR MEXICAN HOG.
Among the animals of the New World, few species are more numerous, or
more remarkable, than that of the Mexican Hog.[V] (_fig. 116._) At the
first glance he resembles our wild boar, or rather the hog of Siam,
which, as we have already observed, is nothing more than a variety of
the wild boar; and for which reason this has been called the American
wild boar, or American hog. He is, however, of a distinct species,
and refuses to engender either with our wild or domestic kinds; a
circumstance of which I was convinced, by having reared one of these
animals in company with several sows.
[Footnote V: This animal has a variety of names; besides the above,
some call him _Tajassou_, _Tajacou_, _Paquira_, _Saino_, &c.]
He differs also from the hog in a number of characteristics, both
external and internal. He is less corpulent, and his legs are shorter;
in the stomach and intestines, there is a difference of conformation.
He has no tail, and his bristles are much stronger than those of the
wild boar; and, lastly, he has on his back, near the crupper, an
opening from which there is discharged an ichorous humor of a very
disagreeable smell. This is the only animal which has an opening in
this part of the body. In the civets, the badger, and the genet,
the reservoir for their perfume is situated beneath the parts of
generation; and in the musk-animal, and the musk-rat of Canada, we
find it under the belly. The moisture which exudes from this aperture
in the back of the Mexican hog, is secreted by large glands, which
M. Daubenton has described with much attention, as well as the other
singularities of this animal; Dr. Tyson also in the Philosophical
Transactions, No. 153, has given a good description of it. Without
minutely detailing the observations of these two able anatomists, I
shall barely remark, that the latter was mistaken in asserting that
this animal has three stomachs, or, as Mr. Ray says, a gizzard and
two stomachs. M. Daubenton plainly shews, that it is only one stomach
divided by two similar pouches, which give it the appearance of three;
that only one of these pouches has a pyrolus, or orifice below, for
the discharge of its contents; that, consequently, we ought to consider
the two others merely as appendages to, or rather portions of, the same
stomach.
The Mexican hog might be rendered a domestic animal like the common
kind; he has nearly the same habits and natural inclinations; feeds
upon the same aliments, and his flesh, though more dry and lean, is not
unpalatable, and may be improved by castration. When killed, not only
the parts of generation, if the flesh is intended to be eaten, (as is
also done with the wild boar) must be taken instantly away, but also
the glands at the opening in the back, and which are common to both
male and female, must likewise be removed, for if this operation be
deferred for only half an hour, the flesh becomes utterly unfit to be
eaten.
These animals are extremely numerous in all the warm climates of South
America. They go in herds of two or three hundred together, and unite,
like hogs, in the defence of each other. They are particularly fierce
when their young are attempted to be taken from them. They surround
their plunderers, attack them without fear, and frequently make their
lives pay the forfeit of their rashness. In their native country they
prefer the mountainous parts to the low and level grounds; neither do
they seek marshes nor mud, like our hogs, but remain in the forests,
where they subsist upon wild fruits, roots, and vegetables; they are an
unceasing enemy to all the serpent kinds, with which the uncultivated
forests of the New Continent abound: as soon as they perceive a serpent
or viper, they seize it with their fore hoofs, skin it in an instant,
and devour the flesh.
These animals are very prolific; the young ones follow the dam, and do
not separate from her till they are full grown. If taken young they
are very easily tamed, and soon lose all their natural ferocity, but
they never shew any signs of docility, but continue stupid, without
attachment, or even seeming to know the hand that feeds them. They do
no mischief, and may be permitted to run tame, without apprehending
any dangerous consequence. They seldom stray far from home, but return
of themselves to the sty: they never quarrel among each other, except
when they are fed in the same trough. At such times they have an angry
grunt, much stronger and harsher than that of a common hog; but they
seldom scream, only when suddenly surprised, or frightened, when they
have a shrill manner of blowing like the wild boar. When enraged they
draw their breath with great force, and point their bristles upward
which more resemble the sharp armour of the hedge-hog than the bristles
of the wild boar.
The species of the Mexican hog is preserved without alteration, and
altogether unmixed with that of the European hog, which has been
transported to, and become wild in, the forests of America. These
animals meet in the woods, and even herd together, and yet never
produce an intermediate breed. It is the same with the Guinea hog,
which has greatly multiplied in America, after being brought thither
from Africa.
However approximate the species of the European hog, the Guinea-hog,
and the peccari, may appear, it is, nevertheless, evident, that they
are each distinct, and separate from the others since they inhabit the
same climate without intermixture. Of the three, the strongest, most
robust, and most formidable, is our wild boar. The peccari, though
equally fierce, is yet less active, and inferior as to the engines of
defence, his tusks being much shorter. This animal dreads the cold, and
cannot subsist, without shelter, even in our temperate regions; nor can
our wild boar exist in countries which are very cold; therefore it is
impossible that either of them could have found a passage from the one
continent to the other, over any northern country; and therefore the
Mexican hog cannot be considered as an European hog degenerated, or
changed, by the climate of America, but as an animal peculiar to the
southern regions of that continent.
Ray and other naturalists, have maintained, that the humor discharged
from the back of the Mexican hog is a kind of musk, an agreeable
perfume, even as it exudes from the body of the animal; that it is
perceived at a considerable distance, and perfumes every place he
inhabits, and through which he passes. I have, I must own, a thousand
times experienced very contrary effects; for so disagreeable is the
smell of this moisture, on being separated from the body of the animal,
that I could not collect it without being exceedingly incommoded. It
becomes less foetid by being dried in the air, but never acquires
the agreeable smell of musk, or of civet; and naturalists would have
expressed themselves with more propriety, if they had compared it to
that of _castoreum_.
SUPPLEMENT.
M. de la Borde says, there are two kinds of the Peccari, or Mexican
hog, in Cayenne, which never intermix; the largest of which is black,
excepting two white spots upon its jaws, and that the hair of the small
one is rather red; but I apprehend the differences are occasioned by
age, or some accidental circumstance. He adds, that those of the large
size do not associate with men; but that they live in the woods, upon
seeds, roots, and fruits; that they dig in the damp soils for worms,
and that they go in flocks of two or three hundred. It is no difficult
matter to shoot them, as, instead of flying, they collect together,
and will stand several discharges; nay, they will even attack the
dogs, and sometimes men. He mentions an instance where he was out with
a party that were surrounded by a flock of these hogs, who were not
to be intimidated by a continual firing, and could not be dispersed
until several of them were killed. When taken young, they are soon
rendered familiar, but they will not intermix with the domestic hogs.
When living in their natural state of freedom, they often reside in the
marshes, and will swim across rivers. Their flesh, though palatable, is
not so good as the common hog; it has a strong resemblance to that of
the hare, and is without lard or grease.
M. de la Borde speaks of another species of hog found in Guiana, which
he calls _patira_, in these terms: "The patira is about the size of the
small Mexican hog, and the only difference is the former having a white
stripe along the back; they live in large forests, and, in general,
herd in families. They will defend themselves against dogs, when hunted
by them: when likely to be overpowered, they seek shelter in hollow
trees, or in holes of the earth, that have been made by armadilloes,
which they entered backwards. To get them out, the hunters employ every
means to irritate them, (having first inclosed a space round the hole)
for when angry they will quit their retreat, and the men, standing
prepared, destroy them with pitchforks and sabres. If a hunter observes
a single one in a hole, and does not then wish to take it, he closes
up the entrance, and is sure to have him the next day. Their flesh
is superior to that of other hogs. When caught young they are easily
rendered domestic, but even then they preserve their natural inveteracy
against dogs, whom they attack on all occasions. They constantly live
in the marshes, unless when entirely covered with water. The females
produce two at a time, and they breed at all seasons of the year. Their
hair is soft, like that of the Mexican hog. When tamed they follow
their masters, and allow themselves to be handled by those they know,
but strangers they always threaten by shewing their teeth."
THE ROUSETTE, OR TERNAT BAT, THE ROUGETTE, OR LITTLE TERNAT, AND THE
VAMPYRE.
The Roussette[W] and the Rougette[X] seem to form two distinct species,
but they so nearly resemble each other that they ought not to be
presented apart, as they differ only in the size of the body and colour
of the hair. The Great Ternat, (_fig. 117._) whose hair is of a reddish
brown, is nine inches in length, from the tip of the nose to the
insertion of the tail, and in breadth three feet, when the membranes,
which serve it for wings, are fully extended. The Rougette, whose hair
is of a reddish ash colour, is hardly more than five inches and a half
in length, and two feet in breadth, when the wings are extended; and
its neck is half encircled with a stripe of lively red, intermixed with
orange, of which we perceive no vestige on the neck of the roussette.
They both belong to nearly the same hot climates of the old continent,
are met with in Madagascar, in the island of Bourbon, in Ternat, the
Philippines, and other islands of the Indian Archipelago, where they
seem to be more common than on the neighbouring continents.
[Footnote W: Also called the Flying Dog, and the Great Bat of
Madagascar.]
[Footnote X: Or the Red-necked Flying Dog.]
In the hot countries of the New World, there is another flying
quadruped, of which we know not the American name, but shall call it
Vampyre, because it sucks the blood of men, and other animals while
asleep, without causing sufficient pain to awaken them. This American
animal is of a different species from the bats just mentioned, both of
which are to be found solely in Africa, and in the southern parts of
Asia.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 117. _Ternat Bat._]
[Illustration: FIG. 118. _Bull Dog Bat_]
[Illustration: FIG: 119. _Senegal Bat_]
The vampyre[Y] is smaller than the rougette, which is itself smaller
than the roussette. The first, when it flies, seems to be of the
size of a pigeon, the second of a raven, and the third of a large
hen. Both the roussette and rougette have well shaped heads, short
ears, and round noses, nearly like that of a dog. Of the vampyre, on
the contrary, the nose is long, the aspect as hideous as that of the
ugliest bats; its head is unshapely, and its ears are large, open, and
very erect; its noise is deformed, its nostrils resembling a funnel,
with a membrane at the top, which rises up in the form of a sharp horn,
or cock's-comb, and greatly heightens the deformity of its face. There
is no doubt, therefore, that this species is different from the Ternat
bats. It is an animal not less mischievous than it is deformed; it is
the pest of man, and the torment of other animals. In confirmation of
this, the authentic testimony of M. de la Condamine may be produced.
"The bats," says he, "which suck the blood of horses, mules, and even
men, when they do guard against it by sleeping under the shelter
of a pavilion, are a scourge common to most of the hot countries of
America. Of these some are of a monstrous size. At Borja, and several
other places, they have entirely destroyed the large cattle which the
missionaries had brought thither, and which had begun to multiply."
These facts are confirmed by many other historians and travellers.
Petrus Martyr, who wrote not long after the conquest of South America,
says, that there are bats in the isthmus of Darien which suck the blood
of men and animals while they are asleep, so as to much weaken, and
frequently kill them. Jumilla, Don George Juan, and Don Ant. de Ulloa,
assert the same. Though from the above testimonies it appears that
these blood-sucking bats are numerous, particularly in South America,
yet we have not been able to obtain a single individual. Seba has
presented us with a figure and description of this animal, of which the
nose is so extraordinary, that I am astonished travellers should not
have remarked a deformity so palpable as to strike the most superficial
beholder; possibly the animal of which Seba gives the figure, is not
the same with that which we distinguish by the name of the vampyre, or
blood-sucker; It is also possible, that this figure of Seba's is false
or exaggerated, or at least that this deformed nose is only a monstrous
accidental variety; though of these deformities there may be found
permanent examples in some other species of bats. By time alone will
these obscurities be removed.
[Footnote Y: An American animal called the Great American Bat, or
Flying Dog of New Spain.]
Both the roussette and rougette are in the cabinet of the King of
France; and it is to the island of Bourbon that we are indebted
for them. They belong exclusively to the Old Continent; and in no
part either of Africa or Asia are they so numerous as the vampyre
is in America. These animals are larger, stronger, and perhaps more
mischievous than the vampyre. But it is by open force, and in the day
as well as night, that they commit hostilities. Fowls and small birds
are the objects of their destructive fury; they even attack men, and
wound their faces; but no traveller has accused them of sucking the
blood of men and animals while asleep.
The ancients had but an imperfect knowledge of these winged quadrupeds,
which may, indeed, be termed monsters; and it is probable, that from
those whimsical models of Nature, they received the idea of harpies.
The wings, the teeth, the claws, the cruelty, the voracity; the
nastiness, and all the destructive qualities, and noxious faculties of
the harpies, bear no small resemblance to those of the Ternat bat.
Herodotus seems to have denoted them, when he mentions that there were
large bats which greatly incommoded the men employed in collecting
cassia round the marshes of Asia, and that, to shield themselves from
the dangerous bites of these animals, they were obliged to cover
the body and face with leather. Strabo speaks of very large bats in
Mesopotamia, whose flesh was palatable. Among the moderns, these
large bats have been mentioned, though in vague terms, by Albertus,
Isidorus, and Scaliger. With more precision have they been treated of
by Linscot, Nicholas Matthias, and Francis Pyrard; Oliger Jacobeus has
given a short description of them with a figure; and lastly, in Seba,
and in Edwards, we find well-executed description and figures, which
correspond with our own.
The Ternat bats are carnivorous animals, voracious, and possessed of
an appetite for every thing that offers. In a dearth of flesh or fish,
they feed on vegetables and fruits of every kind. They are fond of
the juice of the palm-tree, and it is easy to take them by placing
near their retreats vessels filled with palm-tree water, or any other
fermented liquor, with which they are sure to intoxicate themselves.
They fasten themselves to trees, and hang from them by their claws.
They usually fly in flocks, and more by night than by day. Places
which are much frequented they shun, and their favourite residence is
uninhabited islands. To copulation they are strongly inclined. In the
male the sex is very apparent, and not concealed in a scabbard, like
that of quadrupeds, but extends forwards from the body, nearly as it
does in the ape. In the female the sex is equally conspicuous; she
has but two nipples, and those situated upon the breast; she produces
more than once a year, but the number at each time is but small. Their
flesh, when young, is not unpalatable; the Indians[Z] are fond of it,
and compare its flavour to that of the partridge or the rabbit.
[Footnote Z: The Moors and Malayans are most certainly meant, as the
Indians neither eat nor kill any animal. Lett. M. La Nux.]
The American travellers unanimously agree, that the great bats of the
new continent suck the blood both of men and animals while they are
asleep, and without awakening them. Of this singular fact, no mention
is made by any of the Asiatic or African travellers, who speak of the
Ternat bats. Their silence, nevertheless, is no adequate proof of their
being guiltless, especially as they have so many other resemblances
to those great bats, which we denominated vampyres. I have, therefore,
thought it worth while to examine how it is possible that these animals
should suck the blood of a person asleep, without causing a pain
so sensible as to awake him. Were they to cut the flesh with their
teeth, which are as large as those of other quadrupeds of the same
size, the pain of the bite would effectually rouse any of the human
species, however soundly asleep; and the repose of animals is more
easily disturbed than that of man. Thus it would also be, were they to
inflict the wound with their claws. With their tongue only, then, is
it possible for them to make such minute apertures in the skin, as to
imbibe the blood through them, and to open the veins without causing an
acute pain.
The tongue of the vampyre I have not had an opportunity of observing,
but those of several Ternat bats which M. Daubenton attentively
examined, seemed to indicate the possibility of the fact; their tongues
were sharp, and full of prickles directed backward; and it appears
that these prickles, or points, from their exceeding minuteness, may
be insinuated into the pores of the skin, and may penetrate them so
deep as to command a flow of the blood, by the continued function
of the tongue. But it is needless to reason upon a fact of which all
the circumstances are imperfectly known to us, and of which some are
perhaps exaggerated, or erroneously related.
SUPPLEMENT.
Among other remarks which I received from the ingenious M. de la
Nux upon this work, after its first publication, were the following
respecting these animals. He says, in general terms, that the size and
number of the Great Ternat Bats are both exaggerated; that instead of
attacking men they invariably endeavour to get from them, consequently
never bite but when taken, or defending themselves, which they do then
most dreadfully; and that instead of being ferocious animals, they
are perfectly gentle in their dispositions. Speaking from his own
experience, he says, both the great and small Ternat bats are natives
of Bourbon, the isles of France, and Madagascar, in the former of
which he had resided upwards of fifty years; when he first arrived
there they were very numerous in many places where at present they are
not to be found, and for these reasons, that the forests were then
adjacent to them, which had been cleared away by the settlements, and
that it is only in forests they can subsist; besides, they bring forth
but once a year, and are hunted, both by whites and negroes, for the
sake of their flesh and grease. The females are in season about the
month of May, and produce towards the end of September. They appear
to come to maturity in about eight months, since there are no small
ones to be seen after April or May, and the young are to be known
from the old by their colours being more vivid: they become grey with
age, but it is uncertain at what period; at this time their flesh is
very disagreeable, and their fat alone, of which they have plenty
during the summer, is eaten by the negroes. They never feed upon any
kind of flesh, but entirely on bananas, peaches, and other fruits and
flowers with which these forests abound: they are exceedingly fond
of the juices of certain umbellated flowers; and it is possibly for
the purpose of sucking the different species of them that they have
such a number of sharp papillæ on their tongues. They never touch the
skins of the mango, perhaps because it is resinous. Some of them
which have been caught, and kept alive, have been known to eat bread
and sugar-canes, but I believe, even in that state, no kind of meat,
either raw or prepared. There cannot be any thing to apprehend from
these animals, either personally, or even for poultry, because they are
incapable of seizing upon the smallest bird, for if they come too near
the ground they fall, and are then under the necessity of climbing up
some elevated object before they can resume their flight, and in this
case they climb up the first thing they meet with, even if it be a man.
They trail their bodies along, consequently move very slow, and which
is of itself sufficient to prove their incapacity for seizing birds.
These animals, when going to take wing, cannot, like birds, dart at
once into the air, but are obliged to beat their wings several times
to fill them, and to release their claws from what they have hold of,
and even then the weight of their bodies frequently bears them to the
ground; from this necessity of filling their wings they cannot take
flight from any part of the tree, but are obliged to crawl to a part
of the branch where they can act with perfect freedom. They are much
alarmed at the firing of a gun, or at a peal of thunder; and if a
large flock of them, resting upon a tree, are surprised by either of
these reports, in their haste to fly, numbers of them fall to the
ground, not having sufficient air in their wings; in this case they
hasten to climb up the first object they met with; let us therefore
only suppose that object to be a traveller unacquainted w
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/45820