Although it appears that the Greeks were acquainted with the wild
and chamois goats yet they have not described them by any particular
denomination, nor even by characters sufficiently exact by which to
distinguish them; they have only mentioned them under the general
name of _Wild Goats_. They probably presumed, that these animals were
of the same species as the domestic goats, never having given them
proper names, as they have done to every other species of quadrupeds.
On the contrary, our modern naturalists have regarded the wild and
chamois goats as two real and distinct species, and both different
from that of the common goat. There are facts and reasons for and
against both opinions, of which we shall give a detail, and wait until
it be ascertained whether they intermix together and produce fertile
individuals, experience having taught us, that this is the sole
criterion on which can the question be decided.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon_
[Illustration: FIG. 151. _Chamois Goat._]
[Illustration: FIG. 152. _Buck of Juda._]
The male wild goat differs from the chamois, by the length, thickness,
and form of his horns; he is also more bulky, vigorous, and stronger.
The female wild goat has smaller horns than the male, and nearly
resembling those of the chamois. In other respects, these two animals
have the same customs, the same manners, and inhabit the same climate;
only the wild goat being more agile, and stronger, climbs to the
summits of the highest mountains, while the chamois never goes higher
than the second stage; but neither of them are to be found in the
plains; both clear their way in the snow, and both bound from one rock
to another. Both are covered with a firm solid skin, and cloathed
in winter with a double fur, with very rough hair outwardly, and a
more fine and thicker underneath. Both of them have a black stripe on
the back, and tails nearly of the same size. The number of exterior
resemblances in fact is so great, and the conformity of the exterior
parts is so complete, that we might be led to believe these two animals
were only simple varieties of the same species. The wild, as well as
the chamois goats when taken young, and brought up with domestic goats,
are easily tamed, imbibe the same manners, herd together, return to
the same fold, and probably, copulate and produce together. But this
last fact, the most important of all, and which alone would decide
the question, is not ascertained.[S] We have never learnt for a
certainty whether the wild and the chamois copulate with our goats; we
only suppose it, and in this respect agree with the ancients. But our
presumption appears founded upon those analogies which experience has
seldom contradicted.
[S] Sonnini has an important fact upon this subject. He says that M.
Berthoud van Berchem saw mongrels which proceeded from the copulation
of a wild goat brought up at Aigle in the Lower Vallais, in the house
of the governor of Vatteville, with many domestic goats. All the
inhabitants of the town of Aigle were witnesses of this fact.
Let us, nevertheless, take a view of the reasons against it. The wild
and chamois goats both subsist in a state of nature, and both are
constantly distinct. The chamois sometimes comes of his own accord
and joins the flock of our domestic kind, but the wild goat never
associates with them, at least before he is tamed. The male wild goat
and the common he-goat have very long beards and the chamois has
none. The male and female chamois have very small horns: those of the
male wild goat are so thick and so long, that they would scarcely be
imagined to belong to an animal of his size. The chamois also appears
to differ from the wild goat and the common he-goat, by the direction
of his horns, which are inclined a little forwards in their lower
parts, and bent backwards at the point in the form of a hook; but, as
we have already remarked, in speaking of oxen and sheep, the horns of
domestic animals vary prodigiously, as do also those of wild animals,
according to the differences of climate. Our female goats have not
their horns absolutely resembling those of the male. The horns of the
male wild goat are not very different from those of our he-goat; and
as the female wild goat approaches the domestic kind, and even the
chamois, in size and smallness of the horns, may we not conclude, that
the wild, the chamois, and the domestic goat, are, in fact, but one
species, in which the nature of the females is invariably alike, while
the males are subject to variations? In this point of view, which,
perhaps, is not so distinct from Nature as might be imagined, the wild
goat would be the male in the original race of goats, and the chamois
the female. This is not imaginary, since we can prove by experience,
that there are in Nature, animals where the females will equally serve
the males of different species, and produce young from both. The sheep
produces with the he-goat as well as with the ram, and always brings
forth lambs of its own species; the ram, on the contrary, does not
copulate with the she-goat. We may, therefore, look upon the sheep as
a female common to two different males, and consequently, constitutes
a species independent of the male. It may be the same in that of the
wild goat; the female alone represents the primitive species, because
her nature is constant; the males, on the contrary, vary, and there is
a great appearance that the domestic she-goat, which may be considered
as the same female as the chamois and the wild kind, would produce
with these three different males, which alone make the variety in the
species, and consequently do not alter the identity, although they
appear to change the unity of it.
These, like most other possible accounts, must be found in Nature;
it even appears, that the females in general contribute more to the
support of the species than the males; for though both concur in the
first formation of the foetus, the female, who afterwards alone
furnishes all that is necessary to its growth and nutrition, modifies
and assimilates it more to her own nature, which cannot fail of
effacing the impression of the parts derived from the male. Thus, if
we would judge deliberately and rationally of a species, the females
should be the objects examined. The male gives half of the living
substance, the female gives as much, and furnishes besides all the
necessary matter for its formation. A handsome woman has almost always
fine children; a handsome man with an ugly woman, commonly has children
who are still more ugly.
Thus, in the same species, there may sometimes be two races, the
one masculine, and the other feminine, both of which subsisting and
perpetuating their distinctive characters, seem to constitute two
different species; and this is the point where it appears almost
impossible to fix the term between what naturalists call _species_
and _variety_. Suppose, for example, we should constantly couple
he-goats with some sheep, and rams with others; it is evident, that
after a certain number of generations, there would be established in
the species of the sheep, a breed which would tend greatly towards the
goat, and would afterwards perpetuate itself; for, though the first
produce with the he-goat would be very little removed from the species
of the mother, and would be a lamb and not a kid, nevertheless this
lamb would have hair, and some other characteristics of its father.
If we afterwards couple the he-goat with these female bastards,
the production of this second generation will approach nearer to
the species of the father, still nearer in the third, and so on. By
this method the adventitious characters would soon prevail over the
natural ones, and this fictitious breed might support itself, and form
a variety in the species, whose origin it would be very difficult to
recognize; therefore what can be done by the influence of the one
species on another, may still be more effectually produced by the same
species. If strong females have continually only weak males, in course
of time, a feminine race will be established; and if very strong males
are put to females of inferior strength and vigour, a masculine race
will be the result, and will appear so different from the first, as
hardly to be allowed to have one common origin, and which consequently
will be regarded as really distinct and separate species.
To these general reflections, we shall add some particular
observations. Linnæus speaks of two animals which he had seen in
Holland, that were of the goat kind; the horns of the first were short,
almost resting upon the skull, and its hair was long; the second had
erect horns, the points turned back, and the hair short. These animals,
which appeared to be more in species than the chamois and the common
goat, nevertheless produced together, which sufficiently demonstrates
that these differences in the shape of the horns, and length of the
hair, are not specific and essential characters; for as these animals
produced together, they must be regarded as the same species. From this
example we may draw a very probable induction, that the chamois and our
goat, whose principal differences consist in the shape of the horns and
the length of the hair, are probably one and the same species.
In the royal cabinet there is a skeleton of an animal which was given
to the menagerie under the name of _capricorne_; it perfectly resembles
the domestic goat in the make of the body and the proportion of the
bones, and in the form of the lower jaw, that of the wild-goat; but he
differs from both in the horns; those of the wild-goat have prominent
tubercles, and two longitudinal ridges; those of the common he-goat
have but one ridge, and no turbercles, the horns of the capricorne
have but one ridge and no tubercles, but only rugosities which are
larger than those of the goat; these differences indicate, therefore,
an intermediate race between the wild and the domestic goat. The horns
of the capricorne are also short and crooked at the point, like those
of the chamois, and, at the same time, they are compressed, and have
rings; thus they partake at once of the common goat, the wild goat, and
the chamois goat.
Mr. Brown, in his History of Jamaica, relates, that in that island
there is actually to be found, 1. The common domestic goat of Europe;
2. The chamois; and 3. The wild goat. He affirms, that neither of these
three animals are natives of America, but have been transported from
Europe; that they have, like the sheep, degenerated and become smaller
in this new country; that the wool of the sheep is changed into a rough
hair like that of the goat; that the wild goat appears to be a bastard
race, &c. From this we are induced to suppose that the small goat, with
erect horns and crooked at the points, which Linnæus saw in Holland,
and was said to come from America, is the chamois of Jamaica, that is,
the chamois of Europe degenerated, and become less by the climate of
America; and that the wild goat of Jamaica, which Mr. Brown calls the
bastard wild goat, is our capricorne, which appears to be only a wild
goat degenerated, and whose horns might have varied by the influence of
the climate.
M. Daubenton, after having scrupulously examined the affinities of the
chamois with those of the he-goat and the ram, says, that in general,
it resembles more the first than the last; the principal differences
besides the horns are the form and size of the forehead, which is less
elevated and shorter in the chamois than in the goat, and the form of
the nose, which is more contracted; so that in these two, the chamois
bears a greater resemblance to the ram than to the goat. But supposing,
for which there is much reason, that the chamois is a constant variety
of the species of the he-goat, as the bull-dog and greyhound are
fixed varieties in the species of the dog, we shall see that these
differences in the size of the forehead and the position of the nose,
are not nearly so great in the chamois, relatively to the goat, as in
the bull-dog relative to the greyhound, which, nevertheless produce
together, and are certainly of the same species. In other respects, as
the chamois resembles the goat by a greater number of characters than
the ram, if it constitute a particular species, it must necessarily be
an intermediate one betwixt the goat and the ram. We have observed,
that the he-goat and the sheep produce together, therefore the chamois,
which is an intermediate species between the two, and at the same time
is much nearer the goat than the ram, by the number of resemblances,
ought to copulate with the she-goat and consequently must not be
considered but as a variety constant in this species.
As the chamois which was transported to and became less in America,
produces with the small goat of Africa, there can be little doubt
but he would also produce with the she-goats of the common kind. The
chamois, therefore, is only a constant variety in the species of the
goat, as the bull-dog is in that of the dog; and, on the other hand,
we can scarcely question that the wild goat is the primitive goat in
the state of nature and, is with respect to domestic goats, what the
muflon is to the sheep. The wild goat exactly resembles the domestic
he goat, in figure, conformation, and in natural and physical habits;
it only varies by two slight differences the one exterior, the other
interior; the horns of the wild goat are larger than those of the
common he-goat the former having two longitudinal ridges, and the
latter but one; they have also large transverse rings which mark the
number of years of their growth, while those of the common he-goats
are only marked with transverse strokes. The figure of their bodies is
in other respects perfectly alike. The interior part is also similar,
excepting the spleen, which is oval in the wild goat, and approaches
nearer to that of the roe-buck, or stag than that of the he-goat, or
ram. This last difference may proceed from the violent exercise of
this animal. The wild goat runs as fast as the stag, and leaps lighter
than the roe-buck; the spleen, therefore, ought to be made like that of
the swiftest running animals. This difference, then, is owing less to
Nature than to custom, and it is to be presumed, that if our domestic
he-goats were to become wild, and were forced to run and to leap like
the wild goats, the spleen would soon assume the form most convenient
to this exercise. With respect to his horns, the differences, though
very apparent, do not prevent their more resembling those of the
he-goat than of any other animal. Thus the wild and common he-goat
approaching nearer to each other than to any other animal, even in this
part, which is the most different of all, we must conclude, as they are
alike in every other particular, that, notwithstanding this slight and
single disagreement, they both are animals of the same species.
I consider, therefore, the wild, the chamois, and the domestic goat, as
one species, in which the males have undergone greater varieties than
the females; and I find, at the same time, secondary varieties in the
domestic kind, which are less equivocal, as they belong equally to the
males and females. We have seen that the goats of Angora, though very
different from ours, in the hair and horns, are, nevertheless, of the
same species. The same may be said of the Juda goat, which Linnæus with
much reason has considered as a variety of the domestic species. This
goat, which is common in Guinea, Angola, and other parts of Africa,
differs from ours only in being smaller, fatter, and more squat; his
flesh is also better, and preferred in that country to mutton, as we
prefer the flesh of the sheep to that of the goat. It is the same with
the Levant, or Mambrina goat,[T] with long hanging ears; which is only
a variety of the goat of Angora, who has also hanging ears, but not
so long. The ancients were acquainted with these goats, but they did
not separate them from the common species. The variety of the Mambrina
goat is more diffused than that of the goat of Angora; for we find
these very long-eared goats in Egypt, and the East Indies, as well as
in Syria; they give plenty of good milk, and which the eastern nations
prefer to that of the cow, or female buffalo.
[T] The name of Mambrina goat arises from this animal being common
on the mountain of Mambre or Mamre, situated in the southern part of
Palestine, near the environs of Herbron. It is the only sort which is
diffused over Lower Egypt. It is said that its ears are so long that
they drag them on the ground, and that the Orientalists cut one of them
that the animal may feed: but this is an exaggeration and an error; the
ears do not trail upon the ground, neither are they cut.
With respect to the small goat that Linnaeus saw alive, and which
produced with the American chamois, it must have, as we observed, been
originally transported from Africa; for it so greatly resembles the
African he-goat, that we cannot doubt of its being of the same species,
or that it, at least, owes its first origin to it. This goat is small
in Africa, and would become still less in America; and we know, by the
testimony of travellers, that it has for a long time been as customary
to transport from Africa, as from Europe into America, sheep, hogs, and
goats, whose races still subsist without any other alteration than a
diminution in the size.
After having examined the different varieties of goats, and considered
them relatively to each other, it appears to me, that of the nine or
ten species of which the nomenclators speak, there is, in reality,
but one; for instance, 1. The wild he-goat is the principal stock of
the species. 2. The capricorne is the wild goat degenerated by the
influence of climate. 3. The domestic he-goat derives his origin from
the wild he-goat. 4. The chamois is only a variety in the species of
the she-goat, with whom he would be able to produce as well as the wild
goat. 5. The small goat with erect horns, crooked at the points, which
Linnæus speaks of, is the chamois of Europe become smaller in America.
6. The other small goat with horns lying flat, and which produced with
the small chamois of America, is the same as the he-goat of Africa,
and the production of these two animals prove, that our chamois and
domestic he-goat would also produce together, and are, consequently,
of the same species. 7. The dwarf goat, which is probably the female
of the African buck, and, like the male, only a variety of the common
kind. 8. It is the same with the bucks and she-goats of Juda, they are
only varieties of our domestic goats. 9. The goat of Angora is also of
the same species, since it produces with our goats. 10. The Membrina
goat, with large pendulous ears, is a variety in the race of the
goats of Angora. These ten animals, therefore, are only ten different
races of one species, produced by the difference of climate. _Capræ
in multos similitudines, transfigurantur_, says Pliny; and in effect,
we see by this enumeration, that the goats, although essentially like
each other, yet vary much in their external form; and if we should
comprehend, with Pliny, under the generic name of Goats, not only
all those we have mentioned but also the roe-buck, the gazelle, the
antelope, &c. this would be the most extended species in Nature, and
contains more kinds and varieties than that of the dog. But Pliny was
not sufficiently informed of the real differences of species when he
joined the roe-buck, antelope, &c. to the species of the goat. These
animals, though bearing much resemblance to the goat in many respects,
yet are different species; and we shall see, from the following
articles, how much the antelopes vary, both in species and races; and
after enumerating all the goats and all the antelopes we shall find
many animals still remain, which participate of both. In the whole
history of quadrupeds I find nothing more difficult to explain, nor
more confused or uncertain, than the accounts given by travellers of
goats, antelopes, and other species which have an affinity to them. I
have exerted all my endeavours, and employed all my attention, to throw
some light upon it, and shall not regret my labour, if what I now write
may contribute to prevent errors, fix ideas, and bring forth the truth,
by extending the views of those who would study Nature.--But to our
subject.
All goals are liable to vertigos; this disease is also common to the
wild and chamois goats, as well as the inclination to climb up rocks,
and the custom of continually licking stones, especially those which
are impregnated with nitre or salt. In the Alps are rocks which
have been hollowed by the tongues of the chamois; these are commonly
composed of soft and calcinable stones, in which there is always a
certain quantity of nitre. These natural agreements, these conformable
customs, appear to be sufficient indexes of the identity of species.
The Greeks, as we have said, did not separate these into three
different species; and our hunters, who, probably, never consulted
the Greeks, have always looked upon them as the same species. Gaston
Phoebus, when speaking of the wild goat, particularises him under
the name of the wild buck; and the chamois, which he calls _ysarus_
and _sarris_, is also, according to him, but another wild goat. I own
that all these authorities do not make a complete proof, but by uniting
them with the facts and reasons we have produced, they form such strong
presumptions upon the unity of the species of these three animals, that
we can harbour no doubt on the subject.
The wild and chamois goats, one of which I look upon as the male, and
the other as the female stock of the goat kind, are only found, like
the muflon, who is the stock of the sheep, in deserts, and in the most
craggy and highest mountains. The Alps, the Pyrennees, the mountains
of Greece, and those in the islands of the Archipelago, are almost the
only places where the wild and the chamois goats are to be found. But
although both dislike heat and inhabit the regions of snow and ice, yet
they have also an aversion to excessive cold. In summer, they chuse
the north side of the mountains; in winter they move to the southern
and even descend from the summits. Neither can support themselves on
their legs upon the ice when it is smooth, but if there be the least
inequalities on its surface, they bound along with security.
The chace of these animals is very laborious, and dogs are almost
useless in it. It is likewise very dangerous, for the animal finding
himself hard pushed will turn and strike the hunter with his head, and
sometimes throw him over a precipice. The chamois is as swift, though
not so strong, as the wild goats; they are more numerous, and commonly
go in herds; they are not, however, so numerous as they were formerly,
at least in our Alpine and Pyrenean mountains.
M. Peroud, surveyor of the chrystal mines in the Alps, brought over a
living chamois, and gave the following excellent information on the
natural habits and manners of this animal. "The chamois is a wild
animal, yet very docile; he inhabits only rocks and mountains. He is
about the size of a domestic goat, and resembles him in many respects.
He is most agreeably, lively, and active beyond expression. His hair
is short like that of the doe; in spring it is of an ash-colour; in
summer rather yellow; in autumn a deep yellow mixed with black, and in
winter of a blackish brown. The chamois are found in great numbers in
the mountains of Dauphiny, Piedmont, Savoy, Switzerland, and Germany:
they live sociably together, and are found in flocks of from eight
to fifteen or twenty, and sometimes they are seen to the number of
from sixty to a hundred dispersed in small flocks upon the crags of a
mountain. The large males keep separate from the rest, except in their
rutting-time, when they approach the females. During this time they
have a very strong smell; they bleat often and run from one mountain to
another. The time of their coupling is from the beginning of October
to the end of November, and they bring forth in March and April. The
young female receives the male at a year and a half old. The young
follow the dam for about five months, and sometimes longer, if the
hunters, or the wolves, do not separate them. It is asserted that
they lire between twenty and thirty years. Their flesh is very good,
and some of the fattest afford ten or twelve pounds of suet, which
is better and harder than that of the goat. The blood of this animal
is extremely hot, and is said to approach very nearly to that of the
wild goat in its qualities and virtues, and may prove of the same
service, for the effects are the same when taken in a double quantity:
it is reckoned very good against pleurisies, a great purifier of the
blood, and a restorative of perspiration. The hunters very often mix
the blood of the wild and chamois goats together, and sometimes they
sell the blood of the wild goat for that of the chamois. It is very
difficult to distinguish the one from the other, which proves there
can be but very little difference in them. The cry of the chamois is
not distinct but faint, and resembling that of a hoarse domestic goat:
it is by this cry they collect together, and by which the mother calls
her young. But when they are frightened, or perceive an enemy, or any
object which they cannot distinguish, they warn the rest of the flock
by a kind of whistling noise. The chamois has a very penetrating sight,
and his hearing and smell are not less discriminating. When he sees a
man near he stops for a moment, and then flies off with the utmost
speed. When the wind is in its favour he can smell a human creature for
more than half a mile distance; therefore when he hears or scents any
thing which he cannot see, he begins to whistle or blow with such force
that the rocks and the forests re-echo the sound; if others are within
hearing they are all alarmed; this whistling continues as long as the
breath will permit: in the beginning it is very shrill, and deeper
towards the close. The animal then rests a moment, after the alarm, to
inspect farther into the danger, and having confirmed his suspicion,
he commences his whistling, and continues it, by intervals, till it
has spread the alarm to a great distance. During this time he is most
violently agitated; he strikes the ground with his feet; he bounds
from rock to rock; he turns and looks round; leaps from one precipice
to another; and when he obtains a sight of his enemy he flies from it
with all speed. The whistling of the male is more acute than that of
the female: it is performed through the nostrils, and is no more than
a very strong blowing, and resembles the noise which a man would make
by fixing his tongue to the palate, keeping the teeth nearly shut, the
lips open, and a little lengthened, and blowing with all his force.
The chamois feeds on the best herbage, and chuses the most delicate
part of plants, as the flowers and most tender buds. He is not less
fond of several aromatic herbs, which grow upon the side of the Alps.
He drinks very little while he feeds upon the succulent herbage. He
ruminates like the common goat. The food he makes use of strongly marks
the warmth of his constitution, as do his large eyes, which are admired
for their roundness and sparkling, and the vivacity of his disposition.
His head is crowned with two small horns, of about half a foot long;
they are of a beautiful black, and rise from the forehead almost
betwixt the eyes, and, instead of bending backwards like other animals,
they jet forward above the eyes, and bend backward at the extremities
in a small circle, and end in a very sharp point. His ears are placed
in a very elegant manner near the horns, and there are stripes of black
on each side of the face, the rest being of a whitish yellow, which
never changes. The horns of this animal are often made use of for the
heads of canes; those of the female are less, and not so much bent;
and some farriers make use of them for bleeding cattle. The hides of
these animals are very strong, nervous, and supple, and when dressed,
excellent breeches, vests, and gloves, are made of them; this sort
of cloathing is very durable, and of very great service to labouring
men. The chamois is a native of cold countries, and generally prefers
craggy rocks and high places; they indeed frequent the woods, but it is
only those in the highest regions, where the forests consist of firs,
larch, and beech trees. These animals have so much dread of heat, that
in summer they are only to be found in the caverns of rocks amidst
fragments of congealed ice, or in forests where the high and spreading
trees form a shade for them, or under rough and hanging precipices that
face the north, where the rays of the sun seldom disturbs them. They
go to pasture both morning and evening, but seldom during the day.
They traverse over rocks with great facility, where the dogs cannot
follow them. There is nothing more wonderful than to see them climbing
and descending precipices, inaccessible to all other quadrupeds. They
mount and descend always in an oblique direction, and throw themselves
down a rock of twenty or thirty feet, and alight with great security.
In descending they strike the rock with their feet, three or four
times, to stop the velocity of their motion; and when they have got
upon the base below, they at once seem fixed and secure. In fact, to
see them thus leaping among the precipices, they seem rather to have
wings than legs, so great is the strength of their nerves. Some writers
have pretended that they use their horns for climbing and descending
the precipices. I have seen and killed many of these animals, but I
never saw them use their horns for that purpose, nor have I ever found
any hunter who could confirm this assertion. The chamois ascends and
descends precipices with great ease, by the agility and strength of his
legs, which are very long; the hind ones being somewhat the longest and
always crooked, assist them in throwing themselves forwards, and are
of great service by breaking the force of the fall. It is asserted,
that when they feed, one of them is deputed to stand sentinel for the
security of the rest. I have seen many flocks of these animals, but
never observed that to be the case. It is certain that when there
are a great number of them there will always be some looking about
while the rest are grazing; but there is nothing in this particularly
distinguishable from a flock of sheep; for the first who perceives any
danger warns all the rest, and in an instant the terror with which
he is struck spreads through the whole flock. During the rigours of
winter, and in the deep snows, the chamois retreats to the lower
forests, and feeds upon the pine-leaves, buds of trees, bushes, or such
dry or green shrubs and grass as they can discover by scratching off
the snow with their feet. The more craggy and uneven the forest, the
more this animal is pleased with its abode. The hunting of the chamois
is very difficult, and laborious. The most usual way is by hiding
behind some of the clefts of the rocks, and shooting them as they pass;
for this method the sportsman is obliged to take great precaution in
concealing himself; observing, at the same time, to keep the wind in
his face. Others hunt this animal as they do the stag, by placing some
of the hunters at all the narrow passages, while others beat round
to alarm the game. Men are more proper for this sort of hunting than
dogs, who when employed, often disperse the chamois too soon, when they
immediately fly to a considerable distance; the men also find it a
dangerous sport, for when the animal observes his retreat shut up, he
directly makes at the hunter with his head, and frequently knocks him
down."
With regard to the specific virtues attributed to the blood of the wild
goat, in the cure of certain diseases, especially in the pleurisy, a
virtue thought to belong particularly to this animal, and which would
indicate it to be of a particular nature, it is now known that the
blood of the chamois, and also of the domestic he-goat, has the same
properties when fed on the same aromatic herbs; so that even by this
property these three animals appear to be united in the same species.