OF THE DEGENERATION OF ANIMALS
THE deer-kind whose horns are a sort of wood, and of a solid texture, although ruminating, and internally formed like those whose horns are hollow and porous, seem to form a separate family, in which the elk is the trunk, and the rein-deer, stag, axis, fallow-deer, and roe-buck, are the lesser and collateral branches; for there are only six species of animals whose heads are armed with branched horns that fall off and are renewed every year. Independently of this generic character, they resemble each other still more in formation and natural habitude; we should, therefore, sooner expect mules from the stag or fallow-deer, joined with the rein-deer or the axis, than from a union of the stag with the cow.
We might be still better authorised to regard all the different kinds of sheep and goats as composing but one family, since they produce together mules, which immediately, and in the first generation, ascend to the species of sheep. We might even add to this numerous family of sheep and goats those of the gazelles and bubalus, which are not less in number. The muflon, the wild goat, the chamois, the antelope, the bubalus, the condoma, &c. seem to be the principal trunks of this genus, which contains more than thirty different species, and the others are only accessory branches which have retained the principal characters of the stocks from which they issued; but which, at the same time, have prodigiously varied by the influence of the climate, the difference of the food, and by the state of slavery to which man has reduced most animals.
The dog, the wolf, the fox, the jackal, and the isatis, form another genus, the different species of which resemble each other so strongly, especially in their internal conformation, and in the organs of generation, that it is difficult to conceive why they do not intermix. From the experiments which I made to form a union of the dog with the wolf and fox, the repugnance to copulate seemed to proceed from the wolf and fox rather than from the dog, that is, from the wild animal and not from the tame; for those bitches which I put to the trial would readily have permitted the wolf and fox, whereas the females of the two latter would never suffer the approaches of the dog. The domestic state seems to render animals less faithful to their species: It gives them also a greater degree of heat and fecundity, for the bitch generally produces twice a year, while the females of the wolf and fox litter only once; and it is to be presumed, that those dogs which have been left in desert countries, and which have so greatly multiplied in the island of Juan Fernandes, and in the mountains of St. Domingo, &c. produce only once a year, like the wolf and the fox. This circumstance, if it were proved to be the fact, would fully establish the unity of genus in these three animals, which resemble each other in conformation so strongly as to oblige us to attribute their repugnance to some external circumstances.
The dog seems to be the intermediate species between the fox and the wolf. The ancients have stated, that the dog, in some countries, and under particular circumstances, engenders with the wolf and fox. I was desirous of verifying this assertion, and although I did not succeed in the trials I made, yet we must not conclude that it is impossible, for my experiments were with captive animals; and it is known that in some species captivity alone is sufficient to extinguish desire, and to give them a repugnance to copulation, even with their own kind; consequently they would still more refuse to unite with individuals of another species: but I am persuaded, that when in a state of freedom, and deprived of his own female, the dog would unite with the wolf and fox, particularly if he had become wild, lost his domestic cast, and approached the manner and natural habits of these animals. The fox and wolf, however, never unite, though they live in the same climate and country, but support their species pure and unmixed; we must, therefore, suppose a more ancient degeneration than history has recorded, if they ever belonged to one species; it was for this reason I asserted that the dog was an intermediate species between the fox and wolf; and his species is also common, since it can unite with both; and if any thing could shew that they all three originally sprang from the same stock, it is this common affinity between the dog, the fox, and the wolf, and which seems to bring their species nearer than all the conformities in their figures and organization. To reduce the fox and wolf, therefore, into one species, we must return to a state of nature very ancient indeed; but in their present condition, we must look upon the wolf and fox as the chief trunks in the genus of the five animals. The dog, the jackal, and the isatis, are only lateral branches placed between the two first; the jackal participates of the dog and wolf, and the isatis of the jackal and fox. From a great number of testimonies it appears that the jackal and the dog engender easily together; and it is observable, from the description and history of the isatis, that it almost entirely resembles the fox in its form and temperament, that they are equally found in cold countries, but that, at the same time, it inclines to the jackal in its disposition, continual barking, clamorous voice, and the habit of always going in packs.
The shepherd’s dog, which I have considered as the original stock of every other dog, is, at the same time, that which approaches nearest in figure to the fox. He is of the same size, and, like the fox, he has erect ears, a pointed muzzle, and a strait trailing tail. He also approaches the fox in voice, sagacity, and instinct. The dog, therefore, may originally have been the issue of the fox, if not in a direct, at least in a collateral line. The dog, which Aristotle calls canis-laconicus, and which he affirms to have proceeded from an union of the fox and dog, might, possibly, be the same as the shepherd’s dog, or, at least, it has more relation to him than to any other dog. We might, therefore, be inclined to imagine, that the epithet laconicus, left uninterpreted by Aristotle, was only given to this dog because he was found in Laconia, a province of Greece; and of which Lacedæmon was the capital; but if we attentively consider the origin of this laconic dog we shall perceive that the breed was not confined to the country of Laconia, alone but must have been found in every country where there were foxes; and this induces me to presume, that the epithet laconicus might possibly have been used by Aristotle in a moral sense, to express the brevity and acuteness of his voice, because he did not bark like other dogs, but had a shorter and shriller note, like that of the fox. Now our shepherd’s dog is that to which we can justly apply this term of laconic, for of all dogs his voice is the sharpest and most rarely employed. Besides, the characters which Aristotle gives to his laconic dog agree with those of the shepherd’s dog, and perfectly persuade me they are the same.
The genus of cruel and rapacious animals is one of the most numerous and most diversified; evils here, as in other cases, seem to be produced under every shape, and to assume various natures; the lion and the tiger, being detached species, rank in the first line; all the others, as the panther, the ounce, the leopard, the lynx, the caracal, the jaguar, the cougar, the ocelot, the serval, the margai, and the cat, compose only one cruel family, whose different branches are more or less extended and diversified according to the difference of climate. All these animals resemble each other in natural dispositions, although they are very different with respect to size and figure. They all have sparkling eyes, short muzzles, and sharp, crooked, and retractile claws. They are all destructive, ferocious, and untameable. The cat, which is the last and the least species, although reduced to slavery, continues its ferocity, and is no less perfidious. The wild cat has preserved the character of the family, and is as cruel and mischievous as any of his larger kindred. They are all equally carnivorous, and enemies to other animals. Man, with all his art and power, has not been able to annihilate them: fire, steel, poison, pits, and every method has been used against them without attaining that point. As the individuals are very prolific, and the species numerous, the efforts of man have been limited to keeping them at a distance, and confining them in the deserts, whence they never sally without spreading terror, and making great depredations. A single tiger issuing from the forest is sufficient to alarm a multitude of people, and oblige them to take up arms. What then would be the consequence if these sanguinary animals came in numbers, like wolves or jackals, to commit their depredations? Nature has given this instinct to timid animals, but fortunately denied it to the bold tribes; they go singly, and depend upon their courage and strength for their safety and support. Aristotle observed, and justly remarked, that of all animals furnished with talons not any of them are sociable, or go together in troops.1 This observation, which was then confined to four or five species only, being all that were known in his time, is extended and verified over ten or twelve other species since discovered. Other carnivorous animals, such as the wolf, the fox, the dog, the jackal, and the isatis, whose claws are straight, go mostly in troops, and are all timid, and even cowardly.
By thus comparing every quadruped, and ranking each with its proper genus, we shall find, that the two hundred species of which we have given the history, may be reduced to a small number of families, or principal stems, from which it is not impossible all the others have derived their origin.
To place this reduction in a regular method, we shall observe that all the animals of the two continents, as well as all those peculiar to the Old World, may be reduced to fifteen genera, and nine solitary species. These genera are, first, the whole hoofed genus, properly so called, which includes the horse, the zebra, and the ass, with all the prolific and barren mules. 2. The large cloven-hoofed with hollow horns, as the ox and the buffalo, with their varieties. 3. The small cloven-hoofed animals with hollow horns, such as the sheep, the goat, the gazelle, the antelope, and every other species which participates of their nature. 4. The cloven-hoofed with solid horns, which are shed and renewed every year; this family contains the elk, the rein-deer, the stag, the fallow-deer, the axis, and the roe-buck. 5. The ambiguous cloven-hoofed, which is composed of the wild boar, and all the varieties of the hog, such as that of Siam, with a hanging belly, that of Guinea, with long ears, pointed and turned backwards, and that of the Canary islands with thick and long tusks, &c. 6. The very extensive race of digitated carnivorous animals with crooked and retractile claws, in which we must comprehend the panther, leopard, guepard, ounce, serval, and cat, with all their varieties. 7. The digitated carnivorous animals with straight and fixed claws, which include the wolf, fox, jackal, isatis, and the dog, with all their varieties. 8. The digitated carnivorous animals with fixed claws, and a pouch under their tails. This consists of the hyæna, civet, zibet, badger, &c. 9. The digitated carnivorous animals with long bodies, five toes to each foot, and the great toe, or thumb, divided from the rest; this genus is composed of the ferret, martin, pole-cat, weasel, sable, ichneumon, &c. 10. The numerous family of digitated quadrupeds which have two large incisive teeth in each jaw, and no bristles on their bodies; this contains the hare, rabbit, and every kind of squirrels, dor-mice, marmots, and rats. 11. The digitated quadrupeds, whose bodies are covered with spiny quills, as the porcupine and hedge-hog. 12. The digitated animals covered with scales, as the long and short-tailed manis, or scaly lizards. 13. The amphibious digitated genus, which includes the beaver, otter, musk-rats, walrus, and seals. 14. The four-handed genus, which comprehends the apes, baboons, monkeys, makis, loris, &c. 15. The winged quadrupeds, which includes bats, &c. with all their varieties. The nine detached species are the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, giraffe, camel, lion, tiger, bear, and mole, which are all subject to a greater or smaller number of varieties.
Of those fifteen genera, and nine detached species, seven genera, and two species are common to both continents. The two species are, the bear and the mole; and the seven genera are, 1. The great cloven-hoofed with hollow horns, for the ox is found in America, under the form of the bison. 2. The cloven-hoofed, with solid horns, for the elk exists in Canada, under the name of original; the rein-deer, under that of caribou; and stags, fallow-deer, and roe-bucks, are found in all the provinces of North America. 3. The digitated carnivorous animals with fixed claws; for the wolf and fox are found in the New World as well as in the Old. 4. The digitated animals with long bodies, as the weasel, martin, and pole-cat, are met with in America as well as in Europe. 5. We find also in America, part of the digitated genus with two large incisive teeth in each jaw, as the squirrels, marmots, rats, &c. 6. The digitated amphibious genus, as the walrus, seal, beaver, and otter, exist in the North of the New Continent. 7. The winged genus exist also in America, as the bat and vampire.
There remains, therefore, only eight genera, and five detached species, which are peculiar to the Old Continent. These eight genera are, 1. The whole-hoofed, properly so called, for neither the horse, ass, zebra, nor mule, were met with in the New Continent. 2. The small cloven-hoofed beasts with hollow horns; for sheep, goats, gazelles, or antelopes existed in America. 3. The family of hogs; for the species of wild boar is not to be found in America; and although the pecari, and its varieties, are related to this family, yet they differ in a sufficient number of remarkable characters to justify their separation. 4. It is the same with carnivorous animals with retractile claws; we do not meet with either the panther, leopard, guepard, ounce, or serval, in America; and although the jaguar, couguar, ocelot, and margai, seem to belong to this family, there is not, one of these species of the New World found in the Old, nor one of the Old to be met with in the New. 5. The same remark may be applied to the digitated quadrupeds whose bodies are covered with prickles; for although the coendou and the urson approach very nigh to this genus, nevertheless, these species are very different from those of the porcupine and hedge-hog. 6. The digitated carnivorous genus with fixed claws, and a pouch under the tail; for the hyæna, civets, and the badger, do not exist in America. 7. The four-handed genus; for neither apes, baboons, monkeys, nor makis, have ever been seen in America. The sapajous, sagons, opossums, &c. although quadrumanous, yet they essentially differ from those of the Old Continent. 8. The digitated genus whose bodies are covered with scales; for none of the scaly lizards are found in America, and the ant-eaters, to whom they may be compared, are covered with hair, and differ too much from the scaly lizards to be considered of the same family.
Of the nine detached species, seven, namely, the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, giraffe, camel, lion, and tiger, are found only in the Old World; and two, viz. the bear and mole, are common to both continents.
If we, in the same manner, enumerate the animals which are peculiar to the New World, we shall find, that there are about fifteen different species which may be reduced to ten genera and four detached species. These four species are the tapir, the cabiai, the lama, and the pecari; but there is only the tapir we can absolutely term detached; for the pecari has varieties; and the pacos may be united to the lama, and the Guinea hog to the cabiai. The ten genera are, 1. Eight species of sapajous. 2. Six species of sagoins. 3. The opossums, phalangers, tarsiers, &c. 4. The jaguars, couguars, ocelots, margais, &c. 5. Three or four species of coatis. 6. Four or five species of mouffettes. 7. The agouti genus, which comprehends the acouchi, the paca, the aperea, and the tapeti. 8. That of the armadillos, which consists of seven or eight species. 9. Two or three species of ant-eaters; and, 10thly, The sloth, of which we are acquainted with but two species.
Now these ten genera, and four detached species, to which the fifty species of animals peculiar to the New World may be reduced, though they differ from those of the Old Continent, nevertheless have some relations which seem to indicate some common affinity in their formation, and lead us to causes of degeneration, more ancient than any of the rest. We have already made the general remark, that all animals of the New World were much smaller than those of the Old. This great diminution in size, whatever maybe the cause, is a primary kind of degeneration, which could not be made without having a great influence on the figure of the animal, and we must not lose sight of this effect in comparing them together.
The largest is the tapir, which though not bigger than the ass, can only be compared with the elephant, rhinoceros, and hippopotamus; he claims the first place for size in the New Continent, as the elephant does in the Old. Like the rhinoceros, his upper lip is muscular and projecting; and, like the hippopotamus, he often enters the water. In some respects he represents them all three, and his figure, which partakes more of the ass than of any other animal, seems to be as degraded as his stature is diminished. The horse, the ass, the zebra, the elephant, the rhinoceros, and the hippopotamus, had no existence in America; neither was there an animal in this New Continent which could be compared with them, either with respect to size or figure. The tapir appears to have some affinity to the whale, but he is so mixed, and approaches so little to any one of them, that it is not possible to attribute his origin to the degradation of any particular species. And, notwithstanding these trifling relations which he is found to have with the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, and the ass, we must look on him not only as a peculiar species, but even as a single genus.
The tapir, therefore, does not belong to any species of the Old Continent, and scarcely does he bear any characters which approximate him to those animals with which we have just been comparing him. The nature of the cabiai is likewise averse from our comparison: externally he has no resemblance with any other animal, and only approaches the Indian hog of the same continent, by his internal parts, and both species are absolutely different from all those of the Old Continent.
The lama and the pacos appear to have more significant marks of their ancient parents: the first with the camel, and the second in the sheep. The lama, like the camel, has a long neck and legs, slender head, and the upper lip divided. He resembles the latter also by his gentle manners, servility of disposition, endurance of thirst, and aptness for labour. This was the first and most useful domestic animal of the Americans: they made use of him to carry burdens, in the same manner as the Arabs do the camel. Here therefore are sufficient resemblances in the nature of these animals, to which we can yet add the permanent marks of labour; for though the back of the lama is not deformed by hunches like that of the camel, he, nevertheless, has callosities on his breast, occasioned by the like habit he is used to of resting on that part of his body. Yet, notwithstanding all these affinities, the lama is a very distinct and different species from the camel. He is much smaller, not exceeding a fourth or a third part of the camel’s magnitude. The shape of his body, and the quality and colour of his hair, are also very different. His temperament is still more so; for he is a phlegmatic animal, and delights only to live on the mountains, whereas the camel is of a dry temperament, and willingly inhabits the most scorching sands. On the whole, there are more specific differences between the camel and the lama, than between the camel and the giraffe. These three animals have many characters in common, by which they might be referred to one genus, but, at the same time, they differ so much in other respects, that we cannot suppose them to be the issue of one another; they are, therefore, only neighbours and not relations. The height of the giraffe is nearly double that of the camel, and the camel double that of the lama. The two first belong to the Old Continent, and form separate species. The lama, therefore, which is only found in the New, must be a distinct species from both.
It is not the same with respect to the pecari, for though a different species from the hog, he, nevertheless, belongs to the same genus. He resembles the hog in shape, and every external appearance, and only differs from it in some trifling characters, such as the aperture on his back, shape of the stomach, intestines, &c. We might, therefore, be led to suppose that this animal sprung from the same stock as the hog, and that he formerly passed from the Old World to the New, where, by the influence of the soil, he had degenerated to so great a degree as now to constitute a distinct species.
With regard to the pacos, though it appears to have some affinities with the sheep, in its wool and habit of body, yet it differs so greatly in every other respect, that this species cannot be looked on either as neighbours or allies. The pacos is rather a small lama, and has not a single mark which indicates its having passed from one continent to the other. Thus of the four detached species peculiar to the New World, three, namely, the tapir, the cabiai, and the lama, with the pacos, appear to belong originally to this continent, whereas the pecari, which forms the fourth, seems to be only a degenerated species of the hog, and to have formerly derived its origin from the Old Continent.
By examining and comparing, in the same manner, the ten genera, to which we have reduced the other animals peculiar to South America, we shall discover, not only singular relations in their nature, but marks of their ancient origin and degeneration. The sapajous and sagoins bear so great a resemblance to the monkeys, that they are commonly included under that name. We have proved, however, that their species, and even their genera, are different. Besides, it would be very difficult to conceive how the monkeys of the Old Continent could assume in America a different-shaped visage, a long, muscular, and prehensile tail, a large partition between the nostrils, and other characters, both specific and generic, by which we have distinguished and separated them from the sapajous. But as the monkeys, apes, and baboons, are only found in the Old Continent, we must look upon the sapajous and sagoins as their representatives in the New, for these animals have nearly the same form, as well externally as internally, and also have many things in common in their natural habits and dispositions. It is the same with respect to the makis, none of which are found in America, yet they seem to be represented there by the opossums, or four-handed animals, with pointed muzzles, which are found in great numbers in the New Continent, but exist not in the Old. We must, however, observe, that there is much more difference between the nature and the form of the makis, and of these four-handed American animals, than between the monkeys and the sapajous; and that there is so great a distance between the opossums and the maki that we cannot form an idea that the one ever proceeded from the other, without supposing that degeneration can produce effects equal to those of a new nature; for the greatest number of these American four-handed animals have a pouch under the belly, ten incisive teeth in each jaw, and a prehensile tail; whereas the maki has a flaccid tail, no pouch under the belly, and only four incisive teeth in the upper jaw, and six in the lower; therefore, though all these animals have hands and fingers of the same form, and also resemble each other in the elongation of the muzzle, yet their species, and even their genera, are so different, that we cannot imagine them to be one and the same issue, or that such great and general disparities have ever been produced by degeneration.
On the other hand, the tigers of America, which we have indicated by the names of jaguars, couguars, ocelots, and margais, though different in species from the panther, leopard, ounce, guepard, and serval, of the Old Continent, are, nevertheless, of the same genera. All these animals greatly resemble each other, both externally and internally; they have also the same natural dispositions, the same ferocity, the same vehement thirst for blood, and what approximates them still nearer in genus, those which belong to the same continent differ more from each other than from those of the other Continent. For instance, the African panther differs less from the Brasilian jaguar than the latter does from the couguar, though they are natives of the same country. The Asiatic serval, and the margai of Guiana, likewise differ less from one another than from the species peculiar to their own continents. We, therefore, may justly suppose, that these animals had one common origin, and that, having formerly passed from one continent to the other, their present differences have proceeded only from the long influence of their new situation. The mouffettes, or stinkards, of America, and the pole-cat of Europe, seem to be of the same genus. In general, when a genus is common to both continents the species which compose it are more numerous in the Old than in the New; but in this instance it is quite the reverse, for there are four or five kinds of pole-cats in America, while we have only one, the nature of which is inferior to that of all the rest; so that the New World, in its turn, seems to have representatives in the Old; and if we judged only from the fact, we might think these animals had taken the opposite road, and passed from America to Europe. It is the same with respect to some other species. The roe-bucks and the fallow-deer, as well as the stinkards, are more numerous, larger, and stronger in the New Continent than in the Old; we might, therefore, imagine them to be originally natives of America; but as we cannot doubt that every animal was created in the Old Continent, we must, consequently, admit of their migration from the Old to the New World, and at the same time suppose, that instead of having degenerated, like other animals, they have improved their original nature by the influence of the soil and climate.
The ant-eaters, which are singular animals, and of which there are three or four species in the New World, seem also to have their representatives in the Old. The scaly lizards resemble them in the peculiar character of having no teeth, and of being obliged to put out their tongues and feed upon ants; but if we would suppose them to have one common origin, it is strange, that instead of scales, with which they are covered in Asia, they are clothed with hair in America.
With respect to the agoutis, pacos, and other animals of the seventh genus peculiar to the New Continent, we can only compare them with the hare and rabbit, from which, however, they all differ in species. What renders their being of a common origin doubtful is, the hare being dispersed almost over every climate of the Old Continent, without having undergone any other alteration than in the colour of its hair. We cannot, with any foundation, therefore, imagine that the climate of America has so far changed the nature of our hares to so great a degree as to make them tapetis or apereas, which have no tail; or agoutis with pointed muzzles, and short round ears; or pacos, with a large head, short ears, and a coarse hair marked with white stripes.
On the whole, the coatis, the armadillos, and the sloths, are so different, not only in species, but also in genus, from every animal of the Old World, that we cannot compare them with any one; it is also impossible to refer them to any common origin, or attribute to the effects of degeneration the prodigious differences found in their nature from that of every other animal.
Thus, of ten genera, and four detached species, to which we have endeavoured to reduce all the animals peculiar to the New World, there are only two, the genus of the jaguars, ocelots, &c. and the species of the pecari, with their varieties, which can with any foundation be connected with the animals of the Old Continent. The jaguars and ocelots may be regarded as a species of the leopard or panther, and the pecari as a species of hog. After these are five genera and one detached species, namely the species of the lama, and the genera of sapajous, sagoins, stinkards, agoutis, and ant-eaters, which may be compared, though in a very distant and equivocal manner, with the camel, monkey, pole-cat, hare, and scaly lizards. There then remain four genera and two detached species, namely, the opossums, the coatis, the armadillos, the sloths, the tapir, and the cabiai, which can neither be referred nor compared to any genera or species of the Old Continent. This sufficiently proves that the origin of these animals, peculiar to the New world, cannot be attributed merely to degeneration. However, great and powerful the effects of degeneration may be supposed, we cannot, with any appearance of reason, persuade ourselves that these animals were originally the same as those of the Old Continent. It is more reasonable to imagine that the two continents were formerly joined, and that those species which inhabited the New World, because they found the climate and soil most suitable to their nature, were separated from the rest by the irruption of the sea when it divided Asia from America. This is a natural cause, and similar ones might be conceived which would produce the same effect; for example, if the sea should make an irruption from the eastern to the western side of Asia, and thus separate the southern parts of Africa and Asia from the rest of the Continent, all the animals peculiar to the southern countries, such as the elephant, the rhinoceros, the giraffe, the zebra, the orang-outang, &c. would be, relatively to the others, the same as those of South America at present are; they would be entirely separated from the animals of the temperate countries, and could not be referred to an origin common to any of the species or genera which inhabit these countries, on the sole foundation that some imperfect resemblances, or distant relations, might be observed between them.