_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.[A] 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.
[A] Nullum animal cui ungues adunci, gregatile esse perpendimus. Arist.
Hist. Anim. Lib. i. Cap. 1.
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.
We must, therefore, to find out the origin of these animals, turn back
to the time when the two continents were not separated, and refer to
the first changes which happened on the surface of the globe. We must,
at the same time, place before our view the two hundred species of
quadrupeds as constituting thirty-eight families; and although this is
not the state of nature, such as it is come down to us, and as we have
represented it, but, on the contrary, a much more ancient state, which
we can only attain by inductions and relations nearly as fugitive as
time, which seems to have effaced their traces, we have endeavoured, by
facts and monuments still existing, to return to those first ages of
nature, and to exhibit those epochas which appear to be most clearly
indicated.
AND PROPERTIES OF MINERALS, VEGETABLES, &c.